Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

Aldeth, as I stated in my early posts here, they are the same thing. A marriage without God is not a true marriage (in God's eyes), regardless of who is participating. Adding homosexuality is just adding another sin on top of the other.

I'm not sure the 'civil union' thing would work for judges, because, whatever you call it, the judges actions are still personally recognizing the union as acceptable. What's the problem with letting him/her say "I'm sorry, I don't handle homosexual unions, you'll have to go down the hall to room 204. Judge Thomson there will take care of it."

 

In that case, then the judge should not be doing any marriages - regardless of the sexes of those involved. Since none of them are "true marriages" then all should be equally unacceptable.

The problem is the judge is refusing a service on religious grounds, when the action being performed is not in any way a religious ceremony. On the other hand, a Catholic priest should be able to refuse to marry a gay couple.

 

I'm not sure what the legal definition was 20 years ago, but I am pretty damn sure that if you asked someone at random anywhere in the world the following question "what is marriage" they would have said something like "the union of a man and a woman under the law". I am DEFINITELY sure that had you asked this question any earlier than 1970 that's what the answer would have been, with a few possible exceptions in some cultures.

Now that definition is being changed. Fine and dandy. Not everyone is going to agree with it or like it, though, and in the case of people who truly believe that the change is a very, very bad thing should have their rights and opinions respected, and they should be able to voice their opinions without the insulting labels. For example:

1950s: Don't listen to him, he's just a faggot.

Acceptable today? Of course not.

2000s: Don't listen to him, he's just a homophobe.

Acceptable today? Many people here look at that label and immediately write off everything the person says. It was wrong to do it when "faggot" was the label and it's wrong to do it when "homophobe" is the label.

Next point: I think it would be dishonest to say that religion hasn't played a huge part in the institution of marriage, and I mean not only Christianlity but also Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and you can name it. However, it would also be dishonest to say that today the institution is solely or even primarily religious. That is obviously not true, and I would say that over the past 100 years, if not longer, it has become more and more of a secular institution in Western society.

That said, religious people are still part of society, and have a right to voice their opinions and fight for their views to be heard. The idea that they are "oppressing" homosexuals for wanting to keep the definition of marriage that has existed for centuries is to my mind absurd, as is the argument that "you don't have the right to deny two people who love each other the right to marriage." The government, which is an extension of the will of the people, does this all the time. A brother and sister can't do it. Two underage people can't do it. And anyway, if we want to change the definition, why not again? Who are we to say that 3 or more people can't be so much in love that they want to link their lives together and call it marriage?

I say that the "we" who say that 3 way link is NOT marriage is the people, speaking through the government we elect, and we have every right to limit through that government what marriages is defined as.

When the government, representing the will of the entire people, changes the definition, it is incumbent on all the people, even those who disagree, to follow the law and respect their fellow citizens. We must also respect the differences that exist -- and IMHO that means that if a government representative finds it morally reprehensible to have his name associated with something he finds morally repugnant on any grounds, it doesn't matter if that thing is religious or secular -- he should be able to opt out as long as the rights of the other people involved are not impeded.

 

You're correct - the judge or justice of the peace does have that right - he just cannot expect to maintain his employment if he decides to exercise that right.

 

Aldeth, it's only my possition that they are the same, not everyone's, and there are far more than just Christians that have a problem with gay marriage.

Also, it's wonderful for you to say that the judges should just be fired, but could you give us some reasonings? Are judges forbidden from moving cases onto others' doccets (presumably with their permission)? Must a judge personally hear every single issue which comes before him, even if someone else is more experienced, or else recuse himself from the case? Actually, could he just recuse himself from the marriage ceremony/certification/whatever?

A slightly off-topic, but I feel related issue is a movement being made by the board that certifies doctors to practice (forgotten it's name) that all doctors must either perform abortions when asked or refer the client to a doctor who will, or they are in violation of the ethics code. The change hasn't occurred yet, but it is being considered. The issue again is whether these people can be forced to do something they feel is immoral or unethical (even for non-religious reasons) or loose their jobs for refusing? It used to be part of the civil rights movement that people that did this were painted as heros (not these particular examples, but the general principle).

The question it comes down to is, should the government force people to do unethical but legal things or risk punishment? Doesn't this go in with 'Don't ask, don't tell', where gays are restricted in behaviour in the military (legal) and may not display any evidence of their lifestyle (unethical in many's eyes)? Are you saying 'Don't ask, don't tell' is a good policy?

 

So, basically, there's no perfectly fair way to solve this is what you're saying. Either you fire people for their religious beliefs, or you allow a system to develop which unfairly biases one group with more work of a certain type (I'm assuming it would be some kind of a trade of cases, not just shunting them off), or you don't allow gays to get married. Which of those three seems like the least oppressive system to you?

 

Because Marriage was intended by God to be for heterosexuals.

Fine, Heterosexuals married by a JoP should no longer be considered married if it will protect the sacred ordinance of Marriage from such blasphemy.

How about changing Religious to Ethical grounds. It is unethical to approve something against your beliefs. That is hypocritical. WE're talking Judges here, not politicians...

But there IS a context. Marriage reflects a Religious context. Civil Union reflects a Civil Context.

It reflects State sanction of their sins. The Faithful are not affected by this decision and what they consider sacred is not defiled. It's an attempt to keep the peace.

Just put the Gay marriages on another judge's docket where there is no objection. The other judge would be more than busy with other things...

That is just unfair to the maid. Besides, the Gardiner looks after the greenhouse...

Well put. The Government's laws around marriage DO restrict who can be married. Why should one minority get to change the definition when others don't?

So the Gay couple has to wait in another line or maybe another item goes ahead of them. What's the big deal? You want to deny a man his chosen vocation to satisfy your politically correct agenda? That's more hateful than ANY legal opposition the Gay community will face.

[qutoe]the judge or justice of the peace does have that right - he just cannot expect to maintain his employment if he decides to exercise that right.[/quote]

The Judge then has the right to appeal to the Human Rights commission or launch a law suit if he is fired for this. Discrimination is a two way street.

We are talking employees of a government who made the laws that require such accommodation.

You assume that they will just sit there and play free cell while the other judges take on the extra workload. I don't think that's the case...

Legal, Yes. Ethical, Not to the judge in question. By refusing to consider this accomodation, you're guilty of discrimination based off religious or ethical beliefs.

Religion is core to the faithful. You can't ask them to seperate their action from their beliefs.

 

You misinterperet what I'm saying - I'm not saying he SHOULD be fired, I'm saying he COULD be fired. It is certainly possible that the county the judge works for is willing to accomodate his request to not preside over gay marriages. However, if another judge applies to the county who has no qualms about performing gay marriages, and in other regards is as competent as the judge unwilling to perform gay marriages, it would only make sense that the county hire the judge willing to perform gay marriages. Judges are allowed to move cases from their dockets, and that would be an example of accomodating that I mentioned earlier. Usually you would switch with another judge and take some of his work load in return.

But the bottom line here is that if you take a job where part of the job description is to perform legal marriage certifications, you cannot refuse to do this and expect to keep your job (unless as BTA points out that you are so outstanding in other regards that your employer is willing to overlook this shortcoming). That the law has changed is irrelevant. Laws change all the time. We are not asking the judge to condone the marriage - just sign the notarized form.

While I suppose it would be possibe for the judge to recuse himself from all gay marriage certifications, that would be highly unusual. Typically, judges recuse themselves from cases when they have a personal or financial interest in the case, and therefore their impartiality would be compromised. For some examples, if a judge is hearing traffic violations, and one of the cases is a personal friend who has a speeding ticket, it would be appropriate for the judge to recuse himself from that case. Or it would be appopriate for a judge to recuse himself from a case when a company is getting sued if the judge owns stock in that company.

My position on this remains largely unchanged despite the people arguing against it. I think a judge should either perform ALL legal marriage certifications that come before him, or perform none of them at all. Also, I think that if gay marriage gets the name "civil union" then all people getting married outside of a church should get that label. (Although I will add that calling non-religious marriages "civil unions" seems to be more of a semantic that substantive change.)

 

Blackthorne, what if the govn't suddenly, for whatever reason, allowed child slavery, but the contract of sale had to be overseen by a judge (like a marriage certification). Would judges that personally object to child slavery have to officiate those contracts? Aldeth, would they be subject to being fired for going with their ethics (while not getting in anyone's way)?

This I have no problem with.

This is what I disagree with.

Also, judges may recuse themselves if their personal sense of ethics means they won't be fair in a case. For example, a convicted rapist goes to trial for something else, and the judge is a rape victim. The judge would recuse herself. Mind you, recusing yourself from a marriage certification, in which you don't really make any decisions, would probably be very odd.

 

No. They would be subject to being fired for not doing their job. Or, they would be fired because they found someone else who was willing to take on a more diverse case load for the same pay.

I would list your example under "personal" reasons. Of course, givnen that we DO NOT see judges recusing themselves from these cases for religious reasons kind of supports my point - they do not think their presiding over the certification is tantamount to condoning the marriage, or they do not think their personal opinion is relevant when executing the law (which, I might add, is what I would want ALL judges to do - their personal opinion should be irrelevant).

 

Here in Canada, we have a loaded concept when it comes to human rights -- in particular for including immigrants in a society. The idea certainly exists in US life, though I've never heard an American writer use the term. The term is "reasonable accomodation." I think it applies in this case. The basic thrust is that if the employer can find a reasonable way to accomodate the beliefs / practices of an employee and still get the job done effectively, the employer is required to make a good faith effort to accomodate that employee.

What Gnarff says about religious behaviour is true -- it's not something that a truly faithful person simply sheds when he goes to work. It is part of a person's being. If I were a judge, I would not want my name on a piece of paper that represented a contract that I find to be morally / ethically / untenable. I'm not saying that contract is religious -- I know very well it's not. yet I don't want my name associated with it in any way shape or form. I'm of the opinion that it would not cause undue hardship for the judge to shift cases that fall under this umbrella to another judge. That judge can very easily shift some other cases back to me -- I'm not loking to do less work for the same money. I have no firsthand knowledge of the legal system but I would venture that in other instances this is done all the time.

 

Ethical objection would classify as such a personal interest.

If it's "just a contract", then why must you insist on using the same, emotionally charged word? If to you it's "just a contract", then wouldn't it save a lot of trouble to use a different term for Civil unions? To do otherwise weakens your position.

So this judge simply takes on other cases where he is not offended by the nature of what is asked of him. He is still doing his share of the work, it's just that others, who do not share his moral objection, are doing what he finds offensive.

No, I make the assumption that the civil servant in question would simply have other duities to keep busy. It will not add to the burden on the rest of the judges...

To a great many, Homosexual behaviour is unethical. Demanding that they condone such behaviour is also unethical.

Yes, you are demanding that of them. Your legally binding contract is also morally repulsive to them. You are demanding that they abandon their beliefs on this subject for secular reasons.

Such accommodation would simply mean putting something objectionable in from of other judges and let these ones handle other duties. It sounds simple. Why is this objectionable to you?

 

Actually, it wouldn't. How would being opposed to gay marriage compromise a judge's impartiality? Especially considering that he doesn't make a decision or rule on anything during a marriage.

How is marriage an emotionally charged word? In fact, the more I think about it, we already have a name for a religious marriage performed in a church - we call them "weddings". You can have a marriage in a courthouse, but you certainly cannot have a wedding in a courthouse. You've been arguing (completely in vain) throughout this thread that marriage has religious connotations, while completely ignoring the synonym which does, in fact, have religious connotations.

Now that is a load of They are certainly not being asked to abandon any beliefs. You can officiate at a gay marriage and not condone gay marriage. Just like a judge can officiate at a murder trial and not condone murder. Or officiate at a rape trial and not condone rape. That's because, as BTA is saying, it's not about beliefs - it's about enforcing the laws. When speaking about a judge's job, that is about as obvious a statment as one can make. Imgaine if a judge said, "I can't take this murder trial because I'm opposed to murder, and my taking this case would be condoning that activity." He'd be the laughingstock of the courtroom. Replace "murder" with "gay marriage" and the statement is just as ridiculous. Officiating over something is not the same as condoning it.

 

Blackthorne, I would also like to point out that Judges aren't just hired and fired (at least not usually). I don't think its so easy as, "Well, Joe here isn't as efficient in covering his cases as Brian, so we're going to have to let him go."

I like the idea of "reasonable accomodations". If you can get the job done with only a slight modification that doesn't bother those involved, then there's no reason to fire anyone.