riveter,

That's exactly why gay marriage was made legal. The GOP has absolutely nothing to stand on this election so they are trotting out their old tried and true warhorse.

The cynic in me sees the CA supreme court legalizing abortion in Jr. High schools sometime before the election. Probably right when McCain's campaign tanks

Maplefudge, I wish I were Canadian.

I find it interesting that very few articles and talking heads mention the fact that there's only one Democrat on the CA Supreme Court! The ruling was decided by Republicans!

my desk here overlooks the West End of Vancouver - the gayest place in BC. I can see right now two pairs of men walking hand in hand in the summer sun. They look happy. Wish I was gay.

As an employee of the CA courts, I had to take an oath of office that included swearing to uphold the Constitution of the State of CA. I'm fairly certain that clerks take a similar oath upon starting their job, and as such, should be required to dispense licenses to gays as part of their duties, whether explicitly stated in their job description or not.

I would also like to add that the US Constitution prohibits that any laws be passed exclusively on the basis of religious doctrine. Given that the only reasons to deny homosexuals equal rights are derived exclusively from religious doctrines, there is no way for any law banning gay marriage to be considered constitutional. This is problematic only because the SupCourt is no longer interested in law but rather political loyalty, but that is another post entirely.

The law is the law, if the clerks don't like it, they are free to quit. If they stay on and don't perform as the law requires - fire 'em.

Gavin Newsom is a true civil rights leader. I just hope what he and the California supreme court have done isn't for nothing, if the bigots who hide behind religion as a excuse to hate go out in force to vote for a constitutional ban on equal marriage. Would someone please explain to me why the majority gets to vote wether or not a minority is entitled to the same rights the majority take for granted? What if this is the way the civil rights movement in the 1950-60's had worked? Would blacks have made the stides they have.....HELL NO! Civil rights isn't something that should be up for a vote, it that were the case, the minority would be relegated to permanent second class citizen status. There is something wrong with a democracy that allows this sort of thing to happen.

Mr San Diego County Clerk do your job or, YOU ARE FIRED!

back4thfuture -- "Is that such a bad idea?"

Yes. Its amazing you can actually post on a supposed progressive forum and still pose such imbecilic, stupid question. Theoretically I can refuse service to rednecks and zionists and southern baptists ... hmmm ... maybe its not such a bad idea after all.

As for Gavin Newsom he may be a corporate whore servicing downtown interests but he stuck to his guns on this issue from day one despite a major backlash from the Democratic party and for that the man needs to be acknowledged. Besides running for Governor on such a contentious issue is not good politics but he hasnt backed down and I think he deserves a big pat on the back.

Ofcourse if my man Matt Gonzalez was around he would stick a cattle-prod in Feinsteins humongous ass but thats another issue.

Kelmer, I am not sure what you mean by 'some gays wanting to be in the face of those who don't like it.' Those who don't 'like it' don't like us, period. No matter what we do it will be 'in their face' to them. Simply seeing us equals 'being in their face.' Which brings us to what they really want: They want us all closeted so they don't have to see us. We can be in the military, if we don't tell anyone who we are. We can be members and even leaders of churches as long as nobody knows, and as long as we agree not to seek out loving relationships.

Well, I was raised in a conservative Mormon home, and I know what the closet does to a person. I will never live like that again – for anyone.

I am not sure what actions you consider 'deliberately trying to provoke hostile anti-gay reaction,' but again…. The simple act of our breathing does it for the extremists who want to turn this country into a theocracy.

When you say we need to be careful to avoid a backlash – it reminds me of the saying they used to say in the south, when a black person stood their ground or insisted on being treated fairly – that they were uppity. In the 90s, they coined the phrase for us – militant homosexuals. LOL. We never carried guns. We never wore uniforms. We advocated nothing even close to violence. We just demanded to be treated fairly, and for that we were called militant.

Alaskamaid, it's always going to be more advisable to seek out someone who will bring true joy to a special day. But if it's alright for a marriage officiator to decline a service, then what about checkout people at the supermarket? What about dentists or _____(fill in the blank).

The point is, our society is highly diversified, and the only way we can co-exist peacefully is for a standard to be set of treating everyone equally and fairly. We've reached a point where services aren't going to denied for other minorities. Legislating penalties for that kind of behavior has worked.

Maybe it's necessary for you to show regard for 'honestly expressed' bigotry in order to figure out their reasoning/programming. But as someone who has faced homophobia my entire life, I'm already familiar with the reasons. In every case, the prejudice is held for what seems to them to be good and sufficient reason. So, yes…. that has occurred to me. Dozens of times. Slapping a label on them isn't going to help, but pointing out their faulty reasoning can. If that means disregarding what they say, then so be it.

alaskamaid,

It's easy to spot a bigot. I, me, my, I, me, my, I, me, my. It's not about you. Quit trying to rationalize your bigotry. Get in touch with it. Confront your hatred. Let's say it together: I have a problem. I am a bigot. I need help. Feel better?

The problem with gay marriage is that there is this attitude of some gays wanting to be in the face of those who dont like it(even if they are ok with gays).

Personally-marriage is a joke. Heteros already make a mess of it so the idea it is sacred is quite a laugh.

Gays should be accorded the same legal entitlements as non gays and if they want to call it marriage fine.
But deliberately trying to provoke the really hostile anti-gay reaction is stupid.
Blacks cant hide from discrimination-gays and lesbians often can, they should try to flame a little bit less.
Learn from the UK.
Ian McKellan can be gay with style.
Then again all British men seem kind of gay.

Anyway I digress...some people react to sexual issues very strongly-so gay people would be careful or they may promote an avoidable backlash.

I commend aquietman for his (?) patient and gentle response to alaskamaid.

Alaskamaid consistently legitimizes hostility or repugnance toward gays, particularly males. Her technique, whether deliberate or unconscious, is to rationalize such hostility or repugnance by insisting that all anti-gay feelings and stances can't be condemned as bigotry arising from madness or badness. She implies that there are aspects of homosexual life that are controversial or problematic, such that decent people may reasonably oppose or reject countenancing universal acceptance of gays.

And then there's always that peevish, aggrieved remonstrance: So I guess as far as you're concerned, that makes me some kind of monster... I paraphrase. But as I wrote before: methinks she doth protest too much.

Is it OK that lots of people are inwardly disturbed or troubled by homosexuality? That question is equally disturbing and troubling to me. "OK" or not, narrow-minded hangups about homosexuality aren't going to go away. It's certainly not desirable, so it's not "OK" in that sense. It's unfortunate, and a real shame. But people must live according to their wits and sensibilities, and some are more able to evolve than others.

That said, whatever personal, inward, private qualms one has with homosexuality becomes plain old bigotry when it's expressed outwardly to a gay person's detriment. There's no more reason to "respect", dignify, or accommodate sexual-orientation bigotry than there is to "respect", dignify, or accommodate racial bigotry. (see previous post)

It's not about the freaking clerk or stiff-necked pharmacist. It's simply preposterous to invert the ethics to make the person potentially denying service a hero or victim. And it really begs the question to retreat to the querulous "Why would anyone even want to be married by someone who can't stand the sight of them?"

If dispensing the morning-after pill or marrying a gay couple gives you the fan-tods or the vapors, consider becoming a coroner or undertaker. I trust these captives of their burning consciences would have no objection to burying sexually active women and gays.

"Newsom, a Democrat thinking about running for governor to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger"

"Newsom also said he expected a business boom from gay weddings across the state starting in June for hotels, caterers, clothing stores, jewelry stores and others"

"I think we are going to see tens of thousands of couples," he said. "It will certainly be millions in spending."

Synopsis:

"Blaaah blah blah balaha ha bla blah baalaaah, I want attention, bla blah blaha bla bla, I want to be governor, blah blah bla blah, I want money, blah blah bla blah bla, did I mention I am marrying an ACTRESS! Blaha la la la, la, I want to be rich and famous..."

Yeah, he's in it to be of service to the public.

Okay I'm done.

alaskamaid--unless you already have, you should join the clergy. Otherwise, you're line of reasoning doesn't work in a civil society. I am frankly not interested in "figuring out" why people hate other people...I leave that to the sociologists and anthropologists. How can there be a "good and sufficient reason" to hate other people because they have a same-gender sexual orientation? Other than blind, mindless obedience to the "infallibility" of the Bible, that is? If you want to "help" these fools and haters, suggest you become a minister, or a nun, or a rabbi, since they exist in every sect, but, oh, you can't become a priest...yet. First, they have to run out of pedophiles and then perhaps they'll accept women.

If I sound mean-spirited about this subject, perhaps I am. I'm simply sick of the stench of exclusivity in all its forms, homophobia being one of the most prominent. You sound like either an apologist for Hagee, or perhaps a homophobe yourself. Which?

Gavin Newsome sez:

"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 continued. "Talk about a slippery slope, Mr. County Clerk down in San Diego."

************

This is beginning to feel like the reaction of the racist South to the Brown vs. Board of Education decision integrating public schools. Just because you have a valid court decision does not mean that change will be allowed by all relevent parties--yet.

Now, if Gays by the score went to San Diego to get their licenses and then held protests if and when they were denied such license and/or ceremony, it could force the issue in a legal and allowable way. Ditto if those same Gays filed civil law suits against the same San Diego clerk for allowing such a situation to continue.

In the United States it usually requires paying through the cut off nose so amputated to spite the collective face of government before some civil servants understand their responsibilities to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the law they are sworn to uphold.

marci-- if at all possible, yes, of course i would, wouldn't you ?

that is why i didn't have a male doctor deliver my babies, i am not at all male-phobic, i just wanted to be attended by a woman. . . if that's discrimination, then HELLO we all discriminate every day . . .

since marriages are not supposed to be catastrophic emergencies (as in where you might be attended by a doctor not of your choice), i still don't see why it's not more advisable to just seek out someone who will bring true joy to your special day. . .

and while technically maybe the job description of civil clerk hasn't changed, realistically it has . . .

and yes, aquietman, i think we should always show regard rather than disregard for honestly expressed attitudes because if we disregard them we will never figure out the reasoning/programming/imprinting behind them. . .perhaps it has not occurred to you that some people are 'homophobic' for what to them
seems to be good and sufficient reason ? Just slapping a 'homo-hater' label on them is not going to help !

alaskamaid...have you or would you go over with your surgeon your values and beliefs in comparison to theirs before an operation just to make sure that the doctor doesn't "mind" helping you heal?

Wilmoor, I agree that fighting the amendment should be our immediate concern. But the story is in the news and voicing an opinion shouldn't prevent us from fighting the amendment at the same time.

Alaskamaid, no I wouldn't want to be married by someone with a negative attitude, but their job description is to perform civil marriages. That hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is that the right has been extended to people who didn't have it before. So the job description hasn't changed. I think anyone going there should be able to expect that the officiator put his/her personal feelings aside and perform the job professionally. To the point where those getting married wouldn't even be able to sense it out of him/her. Just as I think a pharmacist who doesn't believe in birth control should dispense the pills without comment or negative non-verbal communications.

Can I show regard for honesty? When it's warranted. I can also show disregard when it is warranted. Would you expect someone who is black or hispanic to show regard for someone who refused to officiate at their marriage b/c they belonged to the Aryan nations or some other religion based on the separation of the races? Or someone who wouldn't want to officiate for a jewish couple (I actually had a good church going Christian tell me once that the Jews in the Holocaust deserved what they got because they deny Christ). Shall we show regard to those attitudes just because the holder of them is being honest in how he/she feels?

What I hear you saying is that all feelings should be given respect and consideration. But I think history has shown that there are some 'feelings' that should not be respected. Prejudices of all sorts fall into this category.

I understand that homophobia is still rampant and seen as legitimate by many (too many). But the only way to overcome it and make it as unacceptable as racism is to face it head on and say, 'no more.'

The problem as I see it is that religious people, who aren't being forced to marry someone of the same gender, and who are not witnessing their churches being forced to perform same gender marriages - still feel the 'right' to show their disapproval to others by reacting negatively to what should be a happy day for the couple. It's just a slap in the face to the marrying couple - saying 'look at me, I am the homophobia you have had to deal with all your life. I'm not gone. You still have to deal with it."

Fine, but government should not allow it in civil service jobs. It's the most effective way to turn the tide against it.

I think the issue of a clerk not being willing to marry a Gay couple is the wrong issue to put our energy into. The one that really needs our attention, and fight, is the supreme court getting it's bigoted hands on the issue, and the possibility of a Constitutional amendment following.

The republicans are so good at coming up with these totally ridiculous reasons for not doing things - such as the sicko reason for stopping gay marriages at all costs - because they'll lead to marriages between people and their pets, or groups of friends, etc.

We need to start coming up with some valid reasons why allowing 'the church' to make rules or amendments others have to live by whether they have the same beliefs or not.

nobody has mentioned this, but the clerks' job description has changed. . .
so why are you slamming any who may have 'reservations' ?
this was not in their job description when they were hired.

marriage is more than a 'civil' (let's hope its civil, anyway) ceremony, even in a courthouse,
would you really want to be married by someone who cannot bring good energy to the event
and is honest enough to say so ?

or would you rather they bite their tongue to keep their job and just 'go through the motions' ?

i am not saying their position on gay marriage is right or that in the long term they should be in that job
if they have issues with it, but can't you at least show some regard for honesty ?

find someone who is comfortable marrying you and don't make such a huge deal about it, in my experience it is at least as important to treat other people fairly as it is to expect fair treatment yourself

If it were in my power and the clerks who work for me copped that stupid ass attitude to refuse to marry same sex couple, I will have these words for them: YOU'RE FIRED!!!

I find it hard to believe that anyone would try to excuse the actions of clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses. It is the same as racist voter registration clerks in the South who refused to issue voting privileges to blacks before Civil Rights legislation forced them to. Racist whites often quoted the Bible as justification for segregation and anti-miscegenation laws, bigotry is bigotry and this is very different from those who refuse to kill other human beings. I agree with Mayor Newsom, if they don't want to marry people, they should quit. I'm sure there are lots of other people who will take their jobs. San Diego County is just setting itself up for lawsuits.

aquietman nails it!

I'm too lazy to Google it just now, but I'm reminded of a scandalous incident at a hospital in the Philadelphia suburbs a while back: hospital administrators accommodated a husband's request that non-white hospital staff not attend to his pregnant wife.

It comes to mind because the administrators apparently viewed the situation exactly backwards-- they treated the husband's request as a legitimate personal preference, and accommodated it (at least at first) as if they were ethically bound to respect his good-faith request. The customer is always right!

And I'll throw in a straw man: I can imagine some earnest airhead arguing the propriety of the request from the patient's point of view, i.e. "Well, if someone who's about to give birth is really uncomfortable interacting with persons of color, maybe she should have the 'right' to exclude them from the procedure..."

I understand that this involves a third party making an unreasonable and bigoted request, but it still comes down to having to draw a line and say NO, you don't get to recuse yourself from doing your damned job because it gives you the fan-tods!

It's the same argument about pharmacists being allowed not to dispense birth control prescriptions. It's absurd that anyone entertains the idea that they should be allowed not to dispense the medicine that a doctor prescribes. It is the doctor's judgement as to whether a medicine is called for, not a pharmacists. It is a pharmacists job to dispense what the doctor prescribes. End of story. Not negotiable. If they cannot dispense the medicine because of their personal religious prejudices, then they have no business being a pharmacist.

It is the same now with gay marriage. If you cannot dispense a marriage license for those who have the legal right to marry, then get another job.

Lord Trigo above has it right.

4thefuture is wrong, I think, with the idea that soldiers who object to killing people, which is what soldiers do, should be able to be reassigned due to religious or moral reasons. They should be able to leave the military, though, without punishment, if they get religion or become conscientious objectors after enlisting. But they can't, at least not without one heck of a hassle.

And it's the same way with the clerks. If they have religious objections to marrying gays, and marrying people IS part of their jobs, they should be able to leave their jobs. And they do have that right.

If they agree to the job of clerk, then they do have to marry same-sex couples, since it is part of the responsibilities that come along with the job.

Guess no government is going to gouge out a country for the Gays like they did for the Jews.

If I understand the article, the clerks, who claim it would violate their religious beliefs, would just be reassigned to some other type of duties? Is that such a bad idea? I want people who object to the occupation in Iraq to be able to be reassigned, even if their objection is a religious one. And no, I'm not equating gay marriage with mass murder but I think the idea of personal conscience should be recognized even for those things I don't agree with. Help me understand if there's a meaningful difference here and what it might be. Maybe it's just too late after an especially hard Friday but I can't think anymore. I'll check back in the morning (here), the end of your day there.

What if I disagree with interracial marriages? Could I decline to process them too? What about Hispanic couples? Some of them could be here illegally, you know. I don't want to encourage any lawbreaking, mind you. That would be immoral.
Why don't they just call this what it is: a free pass for bigots. You took the job, now you have to do it. If you don't like it, quit.