Govt. workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses: Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FollowChrist34 said:
Arguing about it - we’re sending people to jail for it - with approval of the ACLU no less.
Click to expand...
The ACLU seems really selective in what causes they support. They rightly supported conscience protection for people who object to military service, even though the duty to defend your country and its citizens seems way more important than putting your name on a marriage license.

Both US and Kentucky law call for reasonable accommodation for religious reasons, but one Federal judge chose jail for Kim Davis instead. Other judges are trying to force small businesses and charities to provide insurance for morally objectionable services, when the government could easily provide those services directly rather than force others to provide them.

The Amish may choose to remove themselves from public life for religious reasons, but that is not required for everyone with conscience objections to what governments do. We would wind up with a totally secular government opposed to religious freedom, allowing only freedom of worship, if that.
 
Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience.

Speaking to reporters as he returned home from a 10-day trip to the United States and Cuba, Francis also repeated his condemnation of priests who had sexually abused children, saying the victims had been “crushed by evil”.

Although the Argentine-born pontiff delved into some of the United States’ thorniest political debates during his visit, he never specifically referred to a controversy over same-sex marriages, which the Church firmly opposes.

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said.

Earlier this month a county official in the state of Kentucky, Kim Davis, went to jail because she refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple following a Supreme Court decision to make homosexual marriage legal.

Davis’s case has taken on national significance in the 2016 presidential campaign, with one Republican contender, Mike Huckabee, holding rallies in favor of Davis, a Apostolic Christian, who has since joined the Republican party.

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.

“And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right,” he added.

Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. “Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: ‘This right has merit, this one does not.’”

More:
reuters.com/article/2015/09/28/us-pope-usa-idUSKCN0RS13320150928
 
clem456 said:
We have to be careful. The Pope recognizes the right of conscientious objection. He did not directly address the disposition of one’s employment in the wake of the conscientious objection, although it could be implied that protection of employment is part of what the Pope recognizes as a right.

It could also be that this right to conscientious objection means one can object without being imprisoned, but might not be entitled to keep a job that challenges one’s beliefs on a regular basis.

In that case, exercising your rights means you shouldn’t go to jail, but you might want to find another job. Not sure exactly what Pope Francis intended there.
Click to expand...
What does it mean, a worker has a right in this area?
 
clem456 said:
We have to be careful. The Pope recognizes the right of conscientious objection. He did not directly address the disposition of one’s employment in the wake of the conscientious objection, although it could be implied that protection of employment is part of what the Pope recognizes as a right.

It could also be that this right to conscientious objection means one can object without being imprisoned, but might not be entitled to keep a job that challenges one’s beliefs on a regular basis.

In that case, exercising your rights means you shouldn’t go to jail, but you might want to find another job. Not sure exactly what Pope Francis intended there.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I wish/hope/wonder if someone/anyone could relay this specific concern to Pope Francis to ask him what he intended.
 
johnlal said:
I guess that’s why we have the First Amendment. We are not a theocracy. The Pope does not dictate our law, and our government workers still have to do their jobs.
Click to expand...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress is prohibited from both the establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Both state and federal law require reasonable accommodation to be made. If you are morally opposed to capital punishment, you should not apply for the job of performing executions, but if you are warden of a prison where executions take place every ten years or so, someone else can perform that duty when the occasion arises.

The county clerk does a lot more than sign marriage license applications. If the clerk has a moral objection to a small part of the job he or she must be given reasonable accommodation under existing law. The opinion of Pope Francis happens to be on the side of both moral law and civil law in the United States.
 
ringil said:
We have divine protection?

Do other countries have divine protection?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Divine protection is when we each or all of us pray to the Holy Spirit, or that’s what I thought it was. :confused:
 
Trader said:
The ACLU seems really selective in what causes they support. They rightly supported conscience protection for people who object to military service, even though the duty to defend your country and its citizens seems way more important than putting your name on a marriage license.

Both US and Kentucky law call for reasonable accommodation for religious reasons, but one Federal judge chose jail for Kim Davis instead. Other judges are trying to force small businesses and charities to provide insurance for morally objectionable services, when the government could easily provide those services directly rather than force others to provide them.

The Amish may choose to remove themselves from public life for religious reasons, but that is not required for everyone with conscience objections to what governments do. We would wind up with a totally secular government opposed to religious freedom, allowing only freedom of worship, if that.
Click to expand...
Yup, been there done that. God is the State; God is dead - six of one half a dozen of the other as far as the State in power is concerned.

Ideally, there is room for us all.
So when Quakers showed up in Boston in the 1650s, it’s no surprise they were persecuted. Puritan Congregationalism was the official—and only—religion of New England. Like every other state they knew of in Europe, the Puritans enforced a state religion that it was treason to oppose.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with him.

If I were asked to do something in my job that violated my conscience, I would resign my position, effective immediately. To linger in that job and attempt to interfere with others doesn’t seem like a Christian thing to do. State your peace, resign, and trust God to care for you. Don’t turn your objections into a three ring circus.
 
Catholic_farmer said:
I agree with him.

If I were asked to do something in my job that violated my conscience, I would resign my position, effective immediately. To linger in that job and attempt to interfere with others doesn’t seem like a Christian thing to do. State your peace, resign, and trust God to care for you. Don’t turn your objections into a three ring circus.
Click to expand...
I’m torn on it. Part of me thinks if I resign, they’ll just find someone that will do the dastardly deed. But if I stay, I’ll throw a wrench into the business. It is a dilemma, and I’m not sure there is any way to resolve it. And given my uncertainty on what I think I would/should do, I have trouble condemning Kim Davis. Nor do I find myself able to condone her behavior.
 
Catholic_farmer said:
I agree with him.

If I were asked to do something in my job that violated my conscience, I would resign my position, effective immediately. To linger in that job and attempt to interfere with others doesn’t seem like a Christian thing to do. State your peace, resign, and trust God to care for you. Don’t turn your objections into a three ring circus.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Let’s not lose sight of one fact – accommodations were offered to Kim Davis. Many times. She was told she would not have to personally issue licenses to gay couples, that other workers could take care of those couples.

However, Ms. Davis decided that since it was wrong to her, none of her staff could issue those licenses either. THAT is why she went to jail. It was for her belief – she has absolute right to her belief. She went to jail because she refused to allow anyone to issue licenses.

One more point – if gay marriage offends her so because it contradicts God’s Natural Law, then why doesn’t she (or Huckabee or her attorneys) have a problem with her issuing divorce decrees?
 
I’ve been following the case of Kim Davis.
The right of conscientious objection is a valid principle.
But there is a little more to it than that.

Consider military conscripts who refuse, for reasons of conscience, to use a weapon.
Traditionally they are assigned to duty as combat medics. Their right to refuse combat is respected, but they still have a duty to serve.
Another example: in the United States if a pharmacist refuses for reasons of conscience to dispense contraception, he is expected to step aside while another pharmacist does so. His right of conscience,is respected, but he must not try to obstruct someone else from following* their* conscience,

Kim Davis, for reasons of conscience, will not issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Well and good. But she must not try to impose her conscience on her fellow clerks. If they choose to issue the licenses, she must not obstruct them from doing so. Persuade or advocate that they also refuse, yes. Actively prevent them from acting, no.

Further, as I understand it, a federal judge ordered her to allow her assistant clerks to issue licenses as a condition of being released from jail. To refuse that demand would be an act of courage. But, again as I understand it, she agreed to that condition, went back to work and then tried to prevent the licenses from being issued.

If true, that means she lied to an officer of the court. Lying in court is a sin, and it means she broke the law to get out of punishment for taking her stand.

We are not to swear falsely, even in service to a good cause. The end does not justify the means.
Kim Davis could have continued to take her stand on principle, and suffer for doing so.
What she has done, if the reports are correct, is to pollute her own stand by dealing deceitfully with the courts.

Edited to add: I was speaking of the behavior of Kim Davis. For the record I thoroughly agree with the words of the Holy Father.
 
replace gay marriage license with pushing the button on the gas chambers at a concentration camp. Does the person with a conscience (that will likely be executed for refusing) have a right to say NO, they will not kill the jewish prisoners?

Marriage is a privilege reserved for ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

Contraception and plan B are poisons
 
Reepicheep said:
Another example: in the United States if a pharmacist refuses for reasons of conscience to dispense contraception, he is expected to step aside while another pharmacist does so. His right of conscience,is respected, but he must not try to obstruct someone else from following* their* conscience,
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, this is NOT the case in some of the cases. In WA, the WA Board of Pharmacy said that a pharmacy MUST provide contraception. And it was upheld by the 9th Circuit.

seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/24/federal-court-upholds-washington-contraceptive-mandate

Even if the pharmacy is privately owned and independently operated, it must provide contraception. I believe this was similarly determined in Illinois. In these particular venues, even a privately owned, independently operated pharmacy cannot refuse to fill contraceptives.
 
Not sure I’m getting the whole “pushing the button on the gas chambers” analogy.

In fact, it sort of strengthens my case. Kim Davis doesn’t face execution. She doesn’t face any punishment for her beliefs, simply for refusing to allow her co-workers to do their jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top