« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Do my lawful job? Nah, I'm gonna call in anti-gay today.

by Jeremy Hooper

When California began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, one local activist, Randy Thomasson, compared those government workers who were "forced" to issue these licenses to Nazi officers that "had been ordered to gas the Jews." So far we haven't heard any of the Iowa activists invoke that same sort of f***ed-uppery. But that doesn't mean they aren't doing all they can to allow local recorders to pick and choose who they will and will not deem fit for marriage:

Republican state senators on Thursday crafted a new proposal that would give recorders an out if their religion is opposed to gay marriage, but Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal scorned it as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Republican Sen. Merlin Bartz of Grafton said recorders are at the forefront of the debate. “They could pull out the code book and say, ‘I can’t do it,’” he said.

Asked if he is encouraging recorders to commit civil disobedience, Bartz answered: “I have to decide whether or not it’s civil disobedience. If you look at the code book, it hasn’t changed.”
Sen. David Hartsuch, R-Bettendorf, crafted a proposal Thursday that would allow recorders to opt out of same-sex marriage licenses. It would be similar to a “conscience clause” in the medical field that allows doctors to opt out of performing abortion, he said.

State to counties: Obey gay marriage ruling, issue certificates [Des Moines Register]

And if successful here? They'll next to push to excuse civil workers who don't wish to grant landscaping permits to ladies who plan on sitting on a bush hog, fishing licenses to dudes who wish to dine on one-eyed trouser flounder, or driver's licenses to those whose cars allow for rear entry.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Does that mean gay recorders in the counties can refuse straight marriages then. We can demonstrate Randy's absurdity by being absurd. lol

Posted by: Matt from California | Apr 17, 2009 3:41:43 PM

If it is a legitimate act of civil disobedience for a conservative Christian to refuse a gay couple a marriage license in Iowa, then it is a legitimate act of civil disobedience for a liberal Christian to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples in states where it is illegal.

Posted by: Phil | Apr 17, 2009 4:15:50 PM

Phil, That's a VERY GOOD POINT! Hmmmmmmmmmmm..

Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 17, 2009 7:31:39 PM

Yes, except that *our* act of civil disobedience doesn't take anything away: It merely opens up the system to what it already should be. But I like the way ya think, Phil ;-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 17, 2009 8:19:47 PM

The wingnuts are nuttier than ever.
I am a vegetarian, & my being so is part of the core of who I am... but I don't think I should be able to opt out of doing business with carnivores!

Posted by: Stephen | Apr 17, 2009 8:48:52 PM

These people are civil servants, and work for all of us. As such, they have no right to pick and choose which people they will serve.

A police officer or firefighter should have no ability to pick and choose which victims of crime or fire they are willing to save, and the same should apply to these people, too.

Job definitions change all the time. Tough luck if you don't want to marry homos. Find a new job, or grin and bear it.

Posted by: DN | Apr 17, 2009 10:04:31 PM

Will this mean Christian civil servants no longer have to serve Jews? Muslim government workers no longer have to serve Hindus? This just gets nuttier and nuttier. Some of these Christians need to spend some time in Iraq and get to know what it's like to be the minority religion -- literally dodging bullets just to go to church simply because other people have different beliefs.

Posted by: Derek in DC | Apr 19, 2009 4:54:18 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails