While I disagree with forcing private citizens in business to provide services to same-sex weddings in violation of their religious beliefs, I believe that local government officials whose job is to perform civil weddings should not be able to refuse to marry same-sex couples, or to refuse to marry all couples, as some judges in Alabama are doing. Still, as this Washington Post story makes clear, some of these officials are people struggling with deeply felt religious convictions:
Bobby Martin had always found comfort in his job as a judge, the way it felt like a neat intersection of legality and morality, but last week it seemed to him like those two virtues had diverged. As the probate judge of Chilton County, Martin, 69, was in charge of issuing marriage licenses, and he’d done so for 26 years, in a courthouse next to the Baptist church he’d attended for decades, in the town he’d lived in since birth, to any heterosexual couple who came through the doors. This place of churches and farmland had always made sense to him, but now he’d been told he would need to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples, and he didn’t know what to do..…
He could agree to marry everyone, gay and straight, but the more he thought about it, the more he realized it wasn’t an option, not with what he’d been taught to believe about homosexuality and the sanctity of marriage. If it came down to that, he’d just resign, he decided. Retire early, rather than risk moral compromise.
All of these officials do not fit the “bigot” caricature through which they are often viewed by secular liberals (although, admittedly, Alabama’s chief justice Roy Moore does pretty much seem to). Nevertheless, those with government authority are required to treat all citizens as equal under the law. They are public servants, not private citizens. And if they can’t do so, they should move on.
40 Comments for “Too Much, Too Soon, For Some”
posted by Doug on
If they are not running a religious type business they are not private citizens, they are public citizens and should treat everyone equally. They became public citizens when they opened their doors for business.
posted by Thom on
Frankly I have no problem with judges that decide that the answer is to just refuse service to anyone, gay or straight. Although their motives are discriminatory, their actions are not – gays and straights end up being treated equally. Eventually the locals will get fed up with the inconvenience and apply the necessary pressure to change the policy (and/or) the judge. I don’t think fighting them is worth the political capital when in the long run the market will rectify the problem.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I understand (and agree) that refusing to permit any marriages in a county technically meets the “equal means equal” test (if no one can marry, then no differential treatment exists) I think that we need to consider the Supreme Court’s Prince Edward County decision.
Prince Edward County, rather than allow Afifican-Americans to attend white public schools, shut down all public schools, both <emwhite schools and non-white schools. The majority opinion, written by Justice Black, noted the historic latitude given to states and locatities in operating public schools, but then ruled that the county’s action was unconstitutional:
It seems to me that Prince Edward County is on all fours. Refusing to permit any marriages is, in fact, probably more offensive to the Constitution than permitting straight marriages but not G/L marriages, because the Court has articulated, over and over, that marriage (unlike the right to attend a public school) is a “fundamental right”, and refusing to permit any marriages directly frustrates that right for all citizens.
posted by Houndentenor on
If you refused to do your job, you’d be fired. So would I. So would everyone else. They can issue the marriage licenses or find another job. That’s how it works for everyone else who doesn’t want to do some part of their job.
posted by clayton on
So presumably you support the Alabama probate judges who refused to issue any marriage licenses at all. Actually, I think they did us a favor by angering young straight couples who were suddenly denied a license by government officials who were posturing for the public.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
All of these officials do not fit the “bigot” caricatures through which they are often viewed by secular liberals (although, admittedly, Alabama’s chief justice Roy Moore does pretty much seem to).
I don’t use the “bigot” handle, so perhaps I’m not an appropriate person to make this comment, but it seems to me that Chief Justice Moore is anything but a “bigot”. He is a deeply convicted conservative Christian.
I’ve read a great deal of what he’s had to say in recent weeks. His statements — all of them, as far as I know — are clearly and unequivocably grounded in the deep and sincere religious conviction that God ordained marriage as between one man and one women, and his equally sincere conviction that the laws of God cannot be altered by constitutions, laws, legislatures or courts.
Chief Justice Moore made this statement on Faux News yesterday: “This power over marriage, which came from God under our organic law, is not to be redefined by the United States Supreme Court or any federal court.”
If you are going to pin the “bigot” label on Chief Justice Moore, then it seems to me that you must also pin the “bigot” label on Governor Huckabee, who has taken a similar position: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it’s in God standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
I don’t intend to get into the game of trying to distinguish between which conservative Christians are “bigots” and which are not, although I recognize that religious belief can be used to mask unconnected repugnance and revulsion that are at the heart of bigotry. I will simply take conservative Christians at their word — that religious conviction is the motivator.
But if I were to get into the game of trying to sort out who is acting out of religious conviction and who is acting out of bigotry, I would suggest a methodology: Look to see what else the person has had to say about homosexuals and homosexuality.
If, like Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer and Brian Brown, the record is replete with statements of disgust, repulsion and repugnance unrelated to religious conviction, you have probably identified a “bigot”. If, like Chief Justice Moore, the record is limited to statements about religion and religious conviction, you are probably not.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Hate to go all Merriam Webster, but:
It would seem to me that what is in Roy Moore’s heart, his actions befit the definition… and don’t bode well for other groups similarly situated on the non-his-definition-of-Christianity side.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s funny watching all the bigots getting their knickers in a twist for being called out on their bigotry. The term is being accurately applied. If people don’t like being called bigots, then maybe they should stop being bigots.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t use the word “bigot” because it is explosive and its meaning uncertain.
During the 19th Century and most of the 20th Century the word connoted religious intolerance (see Webster Unabridged 1913: “A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.) qirh a secondary connotation (“In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.“) extending beyond religious certainty.
By that definition anyone who took John 14:6 (“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.“) literally, insisting that Christian truth was the only truth, met the first part of the definition, but not the second part of the definition, except in rare cases.
During the 20th Century, however, the word “bigot” became secularized, and the first part of the definition (“A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.“) has dropped from common usage. The 1994 Edition of the Webster Unbridged drops the religious definition entirely, defining “bigot” as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from his own“.
More recently, in my view anyway, the word “bigot” has morphed still further, now connoting a meaning that extends beyond “creed, belief or opinion” and referring to unreasoned animus toward a group or class of people different than oneself, for example a person of another race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or similar group sharing common characteristics. This is the sense of the word picked up in the second part of the definition you offer (“one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance“). In fact, I think that the “animus toward a group” is the most common use of the word in modern American English, much more common than the sense of “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices“.
In any event, I don’t want to get into the middle of the argument about what constitutes bigotry in modern usage, or who qualifies.
I do think, though, that the word is dangerous, rising close to the level of “fighting words” at this point, and I don’t use it.
I agree, to be truthful, that flinging the word around, accurately or not, is counterproductive, much like a Christian using “Christianist” to suggest that a person who doesn’t agree with the views of the Christian using the term is not a Christian.
Why use “fighting words” at all? All “fighting words” like “bigot” and “Christianist” do is distract attention away from actions, which are what count.
posted by Wilberforce on
The religious argument is camouflage for deep seated hatreds and always has been.
Fundamentalists have been cherry picking scripture and ignoring the central message from day one, in order to act out their many cruelties. If you want to be fooled by this old act, go on girl.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t think that is invariably true, Wilberforce, and that’s why I think you have to look at what else they say …
It seems to me that there is a place for opposition to same-sex marriage that is religious in nature, without “deep seated hatred” of gays and lesbians or anything even close. I spend a lot of time talking with conservative Christians, and I know quite a few who are in that category.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If it came down to that, he’d just resign, he decided. Retire early, rather than risk moral compromise.
That is the correct course. As Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, put it over the weekend, Christians shouldn’t confuse disobeying laws they don’t support with appropriate civil disobedience. As Moore sees it, if Christians acting as public officials can’t follow laws in good conscience, they should resign as agents of the government and act in accordance with their beliefs as regular citizens.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I tracked down Reverend Moore’s statement in its entirety, as reported in the Baptist Press. It is not as categorical as the partial statement quoted. Reverend Moore clearly anticipates so-called “religious freedom” laws permitting public officials to refuse to perform government functions offending their personal consciences:
posted by Jim Michaud on
Judge Martin and all the rest of the anti-gay government officials, if they’ve got a sliver of human feelings, should be getting a guilt complex right now. Money’s good that Judge Martin gave a lot of time and money to the Marriage Amendment campaign. Couple that with all the lies about gays that were told. And now Alabama officials are seeing just how many gay couples are living there. They’re no longer those “other”. They’re in front of them as human. They’re normal everyday folk that they trashed viciously a while back, without even knowing them. Gulp! The lead picture from the article Stephen linked to shows Judge Martin at his desk, which is adorned with ENORMOUS crosses. Boy, it must take balls of steel for a gay couple to request a marriage license from that dude.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You wonder what the experience of being in his office is like for Jews or Muslims, Catholics or Mormons. Probably not real comfortable, probably intimidating.
I wonder how loud he and his ilk would be howling if a judge adorned his office with the Star of David or a Star and Crescent, and maybe even a crucifix.
It seems to me, though, that we’ve seen this kind of thing before.
posted by Bill Strong on
I’m a public school teacher. Can I refuse to teach the children of those who disagree with gay marriage because of my deeply held moral beliefs?
And didn’t we settle the concept of businesses open as public accommodations being open to all citizens and residents sometime in the mid-60s after Lester Maddox tried to close his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta to Black citizens?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And didn’t we settle the concept of businesses open as public accommodations being open to all citizens and residents sometime in the mid-60s after Lester Maddox tried to close his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta to Black citizens?
We settled it as to race, but we have not settled it as to gays and lesbians.
Federal public accommodations laws do not cover sexual orientation, and public accommodations laws do not cover sexual orientation in about half the states.
At the state level, about a dozen states are entertaining legislation to carve out a so-called “religious freedom” exemption to public accommodations laws sanctioning special discrimination against gays and lesbians, but no one else. The “religious freedom” movement has become a political touchstone. The fight for so-called “religious freedom” is being fought in both states with, and without, public accommodations laws protecting sexual orientation.
In some states, local/county non-discrimination ordinances exist, but local/county ordinances are under attack at the state level in a number of states.
The so-called “religious freedom” exemptions are advocated almost entirely by conservative Christians and their political allies, wielding crosses rather than Pickrick Drumsticks, but nonetheless engaged in the fight. So, no, it is far from settled.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Oh, silly Bill….don’t you realize that religious freedom only applies to heterosexual Americans who want to discriminate against gay Americans. ;0)
I have no idea what you are going on “Go Team Donkey”. I do not know too many gay people with blind and cult-like faith in the Democratic Party. I have know a few gay people who do seem to worship Ayn Rand and even (ironically enough) Bush, I guess that is something some will turn a blind eye to.
For many people their are two options – an imperfect Democratic party nominee and a Republican Party nominee who will probably be more then willing to “use” gay people as earlier politicians might have used Catholics or Jewish Americans.
Some — I realize not all — gay Republicans and libertarians who are must vocal about “Obama /Democrats are bad” mantra seem to live in comfortable blue or purple-leaning communities….that seem to be outside of the rural Midwest and much of the South.
I suspect that most gay voters would probably welcome having serious competition for their vote from two parties (even some serious third parties) but for many gay voters their really ain’t a choice electorally.
posted by Lori Heine on
Why may an absurd thing merely be argued against and exposed as an absurd thing, instead of using countervailing force as a first response?
Well, because the team game must go on. Rah-rah. Go Team Donkey. Shake those little blue pom-poms.
American big-money politics are designed to appeal to savages and overgrown idiot children.
No matter how painstakingly reasonable a point Mr. Miller or the other bloggers may make here, it isn’t enough to appease the swarm. But of course it can’t be, because then the game would be over.
posted by Lori Heine on
Of course I meant to say, Why may NOT an absurd thing be argued against?
Interesting, that those who sit back and goad others to violence are almost always afraid of it themselves. This must be why our mass murder in the Middle East goes on and on and on, with no end in sight, despite the fact that Team Donkey now oversees it.
Oh, but it’s okay now. I see.
“Progressivism” has become, just like social conservatism, nothing more than an utterly morally bankrupt fraud.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Again with the “violence” and “countervailing force as a first response”… and conflating requiring civil servants to follow the law with “mass murder in the Middle East”.
Talk about becoming a caricature of one’s supposed “arguments”.
posted by Francis on
Yeah, you’d think she’d trot out more imaginative arguments, as opposed to boilerplate. Next thing you know, we’ll be treated to a diatribe about how people who bang on about secondhand smoke are committing “violence” against tobacco companies!
posted by Lori Heine on
So you have no argument. Thanks. If you’re throwing me the best you’ve got, and lies and inane labels are all it amounts to, then far out.
Good little toadies.
I notice no mention has been made of the criminal insanity that is U.S. military policy in the Middle East.
What an utterly bankrupt fraud “progressivism” has become. Thanks for proving my point.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Conflating!”
What are you doing to protest our country’s involvement in those wars?
Do I hear crickets?
If the answer is nothing, you are a contemptible excuse for a human being. Conflate that.
posted by Francis on
You are forgetting (or perhaps ignoring?), fräulein Heine, that we have pulled the majority of our troops out of Afghanistan. As to Iraq, I was hoping we would never go back in, and I am again in agreement with Sully, taking the fight to ISIL is a bad idea. Funny, for an alleged “progressive”, I seem to be doing a lot of agreeing with a small-c conservative blogger. Your explanation, if you please.
…
Do I hear crickets?
posted by JohnInCA on
Actually, I work for the military. My stuff won’t be fielded for some time, but *my* part is to make our conflicts end sooner with fewer American deaths.
I must be a comic book villain to you, huh?
posted by Francis on
“I must be a comic book villain to you, huh?” Is that question directed at me or Lauren the Libertarian? If at me, I want it noted in the minutes that I bear no personal ill will towards the armed forces. I merely feel the same way towards war (particularly stupid ones) that Eisenhower did. If Lauren, well I’ll just let her try (and possibly fail spectacularly) to defend herself.
posted by JohnInCA on
Nah, it’s towards Lori. It’s just that after a certain depth you can’t reply to the last post anymore so the threading gets interesting.
posted by Francis on
Believe it or not, John, I’m familiar with the threading issue. I’ve seen it crop up before. I think it was the one where I was doing a reductio ad absurdum of Lauren’s (I’m calling her this intentionally) “put down the gun” argument. Something about bank robbers?
posted by JohnInCA on
So, do any of these “moral” judges ever deny marriages for any *other* reason that would be justified by “religious beliefs”? Any denials over atheism, inter-faith, or re-marriages?
No?
Just when it’s gay people?
Yeah, sorry, but I’m not sorry. Resign if you won’t do your job. You knew you were a civil servant and not a preacher and that was fine when giving licenses to all sorts of people that you wouldn’t have married were you a preacher, so suddenly getting your religious knickers in a twist over gay people is just hypocritical and yeah, bigoted.
posted by Kosh III on
“If you are going to pin the “bigot” label on Chief Justice Moore, then it seems to me that you must also pin the “bigot” label on Governor Huckabee, who has taken a similar position: ”
I will be happy to pin them all.
A judge or any public offical takes a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution: defying the law breaks that oath. Jesus spoke harshly about such behavior–maybe Huckabee should read the book some time.
posted by Kosh III on
There they go again
A GOP legislator(and MD) is proposing “The bill basically lets students in the counseling, psychology, and social work programs at Tennessee universities opt out of serving certain clients because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
posted by Kosh III on
Tennessee SB0397 if Stephen wants to see what his Conservative Paradise looks like.
posted by Jorge on
While I disagree with forcing private citizens in business to provide services to same-sex weddings in violation of their religious beliefs, I believe that local government officials whose job is to perform civil weddings should not be able to refuse to marry same-sex couples, or to refuse to marry all couples, as some judges in Alabama are doing.
I disagree, and I think that’s beside the point here. It is a public official’s job to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed, which includes providing those services the government is obligated to provide.
The problem as Tom has laid out in previous days is not that some public officials are exercising a religious objection and refusing to perform a duty. It is that in refusing to perform their duty, the result is a neglect by the state–the state is failing to provide marriage licenses. I believe in granting religious accommodations, and I also believe in the legal standard that says the legitimate government enterprise must still be performed. If no one else is able to issue a marriage license but that one state employee, then that employee must carry out his duty, regardless of his religious convictions. The First Amendment rights of same-sex couples who believe in marriage must be protected.
The spiel that God’s laws trump human laws is, of course, something I find very offensive to my own fanatical religious sensibilities. I happen to think I know what God wants better than some stodgy judge in Alabama who probably doesn’t even share my religion.
posted by Jorge on
Let me use my profession as an example, as I work in social services.
There are times when issues such as abortion, a family’s religious beliefs, cultural differences, and, of course, homosexuality come up in families. Myself and my fellow employees have varied takes on each of these issues (I throw up my hands at their backwards ways), and of course some of us differ with the values and choices each family upholds. That is not why we here. There are specific justifications for what actions we can take, and they don’t depend on diversity or political issues. The Constitution and other anti-discrimination laws are very clear. At the very least it is not very difficult to tell someone, “As an agency worker I am neutral, now personally I think… but since that’s my personal opinion you can overrule that or complain to my supervisor”.
I don’t understand how any government official could look someone in the face while they’re on the clock and say, “I reject you because of your false religion.”
posted by Doug on
And now doctor’s are apparently refusing to treat LGBT families.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/pediatrician-refuses-lesbian-mothers_n_6710128.html
posted by Jorge on
“After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients,”
Um, so what? This is someone lying to themselves and believing it.
Gee, I’m sorry that the medical profession doesn’t teach doctors that difficult personal feelings are an occupational hazard.
I don’t believe it’s necessarily wrong to recuse yourself from a case where a conflict of interest is too great, but this doesn’t strike me as such a situation. If your profession requires as part of your job description that you will sometimes work with people of a certain demographic or character (I mean, my goodness, what kind of people do you think have babies these days?), you need to be able to put your best professional foot forward.
What’s next, trauma surgeons refusing to treat gang members? No I am not comparing lesbians to gang members.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Wow Jorge. Aren’t you the one that had such a hard time comprehending what Tom Scharbach meant by the “faggot, faggot” strategy employed by Republicans in 2004? And now you don’t want to be misunderstood as comparing lesbians to gang members. I know what you meant, but coming from YOU is just rich.
posted by Lori Heine on
I see that after a certain number of replies, we are unable to add anything to them.
Getting past all the third-graderish fun the little kiddies are having with my name, the comic book thinking charge has not been refuted by anyone. Quite to the contrary, it has been reinforced.
Withdrawing any particular number of troops from a conflict is nowhere near the same as completely ending it. Not only is that unlikely to happen under Emperor O, but we will probably end up returning troops to those regions.
The intellectual dishonesty of fake progressives, who advocate aggression at every turn against their own fellow citizens yet claim to be for peace and democracy, is truly spectacular. It is also very entertaining. Keep it up, children. Fraulein is amused.
posted by William on
I think the problem is that marriage is considered more sacred than civil by many (for good reason), so it can be like performing a religious ceremony for a faith other than one’s own. This makes the situation not unlike when church and state was connected, and one lost their civil position whenever the predominate religion changed, and that servant was not able to give the new oath.
Being a Libertarian, I just as well get the government out of marriage and can think of no compelling reason for the government to regulate this relationship. But if it IS needed, perhaps a name change, to “domestic partnership contract” or the like, would help to make it more secular? Sure it is called “Civil” Marriage which is supposed to differentiate, but that makes it no less sacred for many. If the government perform Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremonies, would it make it secular to add “Civil” to the name? It is better just to say “age of accountability”.
As far as “Bigot”, it is used so badly these days that if a journal or essay makes use of it, I pretty write it off and taking it seriously no more. I am sure many do the same. If you want to be uniquely persuasive to others with differing opinions, don’t use it unless you are 100% sure it fits (Westboro maybe?). However, if you want to have a pep-rally with friends merely, go ahead and call names. It seems to be common enough.