Login

07-12-2011, 09:24 PM

Oh dear, this is a bit of a step backwards: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/07/12/equ...s-beliefs/

If a public servant who is a registrar (conducts civil marriage [straight] and civil partnership [gay] ceremonies) says he/she can't conduct a particular ceremony because it is against his/her religious beliefs should not be in that job. And anyway, civil marriages/partnerships are strictly non-religious anyway so why has the registrar's faith got anything to do with it. AND (am getting really irritated now) gay people can't have a marriage in the UK anyway - we get civil partnerships, and when did the bible say anything against civil partnerships (Sounds like a type of business formation between a group of construction companies anyway.)

07-12-2011, 09:34 PM

I couldn't agree more, Colin... It used to be that weddings were only economic contracts anyway... It was the way for a man to ensure a lineage and for a woman to ensure she was cared for and protected... It didn't mean that there had to be love in the equation. Love is a fairly recent notion in relation to marriage. It dates back to the romantics of the 19th century, not much earlier than that. Of course love and attraction have always existed. It's just the notion of it being part of a successful marriage that dates back to the nineteenth century.

07-12-2011, 10:41 PM

This happened in Canada as well, but the court ruled civil servants have to perform civil marriages to whoever meets the requirements.

http://www.slaw.ca/2011/01/20/freedom-of...-servants/

07-13-2011, 12:10 AM

I think that there should be no government recognized marriages at all. everyone gets a civil union, or partnership, or whatever you want to call it. Then everyone is equal. Marriage should be performed religiously so that the government cant step in. at least that would work here in the states. not so sure in the uk...

And if you cant handle your job you shouldnt be there.
Also one persons religious beliefs shouldnt get in the way of another persons freedom.

07-13-2011, 12:16 AM

Is it such a big deal though. Why can't the person just say something along the lines of "I can't perform my job in this situation", politely of course, and let someone else step in and do the ceremony.

I have my beliefs, and I expect others to have their own as well. While religion I often find irritating, I do think its going a bit far to expect anyone to go against there own beliefs, especially if the issue is so easily remedied through other means; such as finding someone who is comfortable to perform the ceremony...

07-13-2011, 12:26 AM

Ceruleaan Wrote:Is it such a big deal though. Why can't the person just say something along the lines of "I can't perform my job in this situation", politely of course, and let someone else step in and do the ceremony.

I have my beliefs, and I expect others to have their own as well. While religion I often find irritating, I do think its going a bit far to expect anyone to go against there own beliefs, especially if the issue is so easily remedied through other means; such as finding someone who is comfortable to perform the ceremony...

Hey, Ceru, yes you have a point, but what happens when there's only one registrar there to perform said ceremony or civil act? It is, after all, just the drawing up of documents that testify that said partnership was contracted....

fredv3b · 07-13-2011, 07:07 AM

colinmackay Wrote:Sounds like a type of business formation between a group of construction companies anyway.

LOL!

princealbertofb Wrote:Hey, Ceru, yes you have a point, but what happens when there's only one registrar there to perform said ceremony or civil act? It is, after all, just the drawing up of documents that testify that said partnership was contracted....

While there may well be times that there is only one registrar in the Orkney's, that is simply not the case in Islington. Given that Lillian Laedel became a registrar before Civil Partnerships were even on the horizon and the council have never denied her claim that swaps could be arranged so that Civil Partnerships were always performed, but by one of her colleagues, she has my legal sympathies.

07-13-2011, 12:13 PM

This is a case of someone no longer being capable to perform their job as is expected of them, they should resign if they find the requirements of their job reprehensible. No one is forcing her to agree with civil partnerships or to approve of them, I would expect her to do her job with the blind equality I expect from the state. Would you say it is alright for her not to marry inter-racial couples, because it goes against her belief in racism? Or should she also be able to pass along tall couples, because she's a Social Darwinist with a chip on her shoulder about tall people.

Edit: Moreover, if it is OK for one civil servant to deny service based on personal prejudice, rather than the law, then it would be OK for all civil servants to deny any service they want. What if a nurse refused to give treatment to someone because they are gay?

07-13-2011, 05:36 PM

Thanks, Pip, point made and taken... I am a civil servant and I hate some aspects of my job, like marking papers but I wouldt never dream of not doing it, because it's what is expected and part of the job. My particular likes and dislikes in the matter have nothing to do with it.

I don't think Ms Laedel is above the law of the land that she serves. She gets paid by people's taxes and these people only want her to draw up a legal paper, and a service she can provide because their taxes pay for this...

This is a case when I think the individual doesn't get to choose. I didn't vote for our president, I don't like him very much, but he still rules my world to some extent because the majority voted him in. Such are laws, aren't they?

The "privilege" (don't get me wrong with this word) of contracting a Civil Partnership with someone is still on shaky grounds as far as permanence is concerned. It could just as easily become illegal within the next decade... Who knows? The only way to make it more permanent is to enforce it.

fredv3b · (Edited 07-13-2011, 07:02 PM by fredv3b.)

Pip & PA,

The state changed the requirements of her job. The points about inter-racial marriage and marking are irrelevant, they always were parts of her and PAs jobs. It seems to me rather vindictive against her for the state to ban her from engaging in swaps with her colleagues to avoid Civil Partnerships, other swaps are perfectly allowable. In no way is the state protecting rights of same-sex couples, they only have a right to have someone officiate their Civil Partnerships.