Yeah Is there going to wrote on May 20, 2008 2:23 PM:be any clerks to marry and one man and 12 willing adult females? If not I want the ACLU here yesterday!

Osider wrote on May 20, 2008 2:28 PM:This should be the right of the county employee if they do not want to officiate the ceremony. Why should they be forced to do something against their moral or religious beliefs. All this does is create havoc thruout our society! We the people of California have voted and spoken on this issue. You still have all the rights as a normal man and woman marriage.

John wrote on May 20, 2008 2:51 PM:If you are a Hindu you should not work at a burger joint. If you are a county employee who doesn't want to do his or her job for ANY reason - you should be fired and replaced with a willing worker. You can go find a job in a church or chapel.

Tax payer rights wrote on May 20, 2008 2:55 PM:Hey Osider... What about the rights of the tax payers who help pay for the county employees? Don't they have a right to have services rendered when they help pay the salaries and pensions of county employees? I expect them to do the job or find another one, and that includes Greg Smith.

To John and Tax Payer wrote on May 20, 2008 3:19 PM:Ohhh pleeeeaze, you have me pulling out my hair. Please explain to the tax payers why a conscientious objector is not required by the military to fight in a war he considers immoral.

Givemeabreak wrote on May 20, 2008 3:58 PM:This town is so backward. Tell those civil servants there are tons of unemployed willing people that will do there job. Where does it stop? Bunch of wusses.

I also hate my job wrote on May 20, 2008 4:20 PM:But if I expect a paycheck on Firday I do it anyway. I am amazed at the nerve of the nerve of those feeding at the public trough. SIMPLY AMAZING.

John wrote on May 20, 2008 4:35 PM:OK 3:19 - you have a point. I believe that the military reassigns conscientious objectors. County employees who refuse to officiate should be reassigned - not excused.

Abraham wrote on May 20, 2008 5:05 PM:How about excusing clerks that have a personal objection to marriage in general from officiating any marriage? How about excusing clerks that have a personal objection to working from having to work? What an idiot! If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Change is Coming... wrote on May 20, 2008 5:14 PM:I really don't have a problem with county clerks bowing out of a ceremony based on their moral beliefs since it would only be to their detriment and the couple waiting to be married. If pharmacists can object to filling out Plan B prescriptions than I feel this should be allowable too. As someone for gay marriage I feel it's only fair that both sides should be accomodated to the best of the county's ability.

Greg wrote on May 20, 2008 5:37 PM:If it is part of your job, you must do it or be fired. It's that simple.

In my work I dont get to pick and choose what I will or won't do.

Loving v Viriginia wrote on May 20, 2008 6:33 PM:To those who think its ok to opt out. How would you feel if a clerk opt-ed out of a ceremony because it was a marriage between an African-American and a white person?

Yeah, that wouldn't go over so well. That person would get fired under a storm of protest. Well it looks like gays and lesbians are getting same rights that blacks fought for 40 years ago.

Its not going to be ok to discriminate anymore. If the clerk doesn't like it, they need to find a new position.

To the conscientious objection (in war) issue: Killing is one thing. But to equate it with performing a job under the law as a public servant is not the same.

Here's something similar though, what if a school teacher didn't want to teach a child because she was black, or muslim, or gay or Christian?

They would not get a chance to object or "opt out". They would also be fired under a storm of protest. Yet, just a few years ago, all this was totally accepted.

And so that should answer the one who wrote the will of the people of California is not being respected. The will of the people in the 1850's was to have slavery and segregate all the male Chinese workers in San Francisco.

The will of the people in the 1890's was that women should not vote.

The will of the majority in the 1940 was that there should not be interracial marriage.

The courts were the ones that had to act to protect the minority from the majority.

No rights have ever just been given away. They always had to be taken hold of.

Now I will get married to my partner ASAP.

And just like your ancestors with the loss of their slaves, with women given the right to vote, with integration, and with interracial marriage, you will eventually get used to it.

Majority Tyranny wrote on May 20, 2008 6:36 PM:Evidently, some people have difficulty differentiating between what is legal and what is majority sentiment...referendums cannot override the law...if majority sentiment equals law, then slavery and lynchings might still be legal in Dixie...go ahead, waste your time and money holding referendums, as long as at the end of the process you realize that all you've done is taken an opinion poll, not created new law.

How Bizarre wrote on May 20, 2008 7:41 PM:These same clerks who object on religious grounds have no problem performing civil ceremonies, ceremonies that are not recognized by the church!!! These clerks are aiding and abetting in SIN SIN SIN and MORE SIN. Is that the height of hypocrisy. But I expect that from religious zealots

To Osider wrote on May 20, 2008 7:43 PM:You say ... "This should be the right of the county employee if they do not want to officiate the ceremony. Why should they be forced to do something against their moral or religious beliefs." ... Here's the simple answer: Because they are PUBLIC employees hired to do the job the PUBLIC pays them for with their PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS. In case you weren't aware, gay people contribute to our community too and they are entitled to the same level of service as anyone else when it comes to dealing with our PUBLIC employees. If the PUBLIC employees do not wish to do all their job requires then they are more than able to leave and go find a job in the PRIVATE sector that allows them that luxury.

singular and plural wrote on May 20, 2008 7:51 PM:The person first person who posted (at 2:23) doesn't understand the difference between singular and plural. The court's interpretation of the law is that each of us can marry the person of his or her choice, not *people" of his or her choice. I guess we should expect this kind of confusion from someone who asks "Is there going to be any clerks?" instead of "Are there going to be any clerks?"

Love all but dont serve all wrote on May 20, 2008 8:10 PM:I'm totally for allowing gay citizens to marry just like the rest of us, but why fire genuine religious objectors over something that might require five minutes of their time every month? Firing them seems horribly spiteful. On the other hand, they should have enough humility to at least realize that an atheist auditor at the IRS still has to sign off on deductible contributions to churches, even if the atheist opposes tax-exempt status for an organization built around an invisible being up in the sky. That's just the law.

Lets just stay home wrote on May 20, 2008 9:55 PM:We can't (and shouldn't) discriminate against gays and their newly granted rights. But at the same time we need to be sure to not discriminate against loyal county employees and their religious preferences.

All of you people who think that either side is right are missing the point. Everyone should be granted accommodations based on those "anti-discrimination" categories (e.g. gender, age, race, disability, religion etc.) and if that keeps people apart from each other then so be it. You simply can't trump one person civil rights for that of another. A balance must be found.

bogie wrote on May 21, 2008 2:39 AM:Lets just stay home
[-] wrote on May 20, 2008 9:55 PM:

A voice of reason on this blog. Right on.

Ummmmm wrote on May 21, 2008 5:55 AM:Am I excused from teaching homosexuals???? Or skinheads, atheists, transexuals, or just anybody???? NO!!!! As a public employee I MAY NOT discriminate! This is a load of you know what!!!!

Sleeping but Awake wrote on May 21, 2008 6:35 AM:If a county employee does not want to do their job they can quit or get a new job. If the clerks are so offended by gay marriage they should go to work at a church. Then they can pray to their savior, read the scriptures and hate on gays in their house of worship along with like minded illiterate bigots.
Grag Smith - "I am not going to go there, I obey the law," Either obey the law without undermining the spirit and meaning of the ruling or quit. I know that I will never vote for you again as I would rather have your office occupied by a good man that really supports all the citizens of the county. Your actions favors and panders to the opinions of the bigots by letting them opt out. It is nothing less than a subtle and deliberate institutionaliztion of hate within your team and your department, shame.

Yokozuna wrote on May 21, 2008 7:21 AM:There was a similar predicament a year or so ago with certain pharmacists refusing to fill subscriptions for a certain type of birth control. The major companies gave them an option to either dispense the drug or leave the company. Letting an employee get away with this kind of nonsense could lead to all types of discriminatory actions. For instance... to deny to work with Planned Parenthood for a permit to build? To deny an environmental group to process grievances? Get real!!

Mike S. wrote on May 21, 2008 7:23 AM:Well, I think if I were gay, and were getting married, I'd rather have someone officiating who wasn't silently praying for my damnation at the same time. So as long as there are people available who are willing to cheerfully officiate, maybe acccommodating the bigots isn't such a tragedy.

I am so tired wrote on May 21, 2008 7:58 AM:of bending over so that gay and lesbians can get what ever they want. I for one want my kids growing up with out this issue being forced on them or me. People here are talking about segration and all that. Black people were given a choice on their race.....lifestyle is a choice. I don't buy that "I was born like this"....lifestyle is a choice. Your choices should not reflect on my life or that of my childrens.

To on - ... Re Conscientious Objectors wrote on May 21, 2008 8:10 AM:Quite frankly, they should have to do their jobs too. They signed up for the military voluntarily and they know that war is a possibility. They shouldn't be able to get the benefits of the military (GI Bill, Medical Care, Room & Board, etc) only to cry & whine when it's time to pay their half of the check.

Sandy wrote on May 21, 2008 8:12 AM:To Ummmmm: You are a teacher? Okay, now I understand why my granddaughter uses multiple question marks and exclamation points. I thought it was just her idea of a cutesy middle school way of writing. I wonder if, like her, you also make heart shaped dots over each "i."

esteban wrote on May 21, 2008 8:39 AM:I prefer, I not ask and you not tell me. Keep it in the closet!

Roberto wrote on May 21, 2008 8:51 AM:Who cares if gays marry and the clerks supervisor accomodates his employees?...silly on both sides. Now let the Mormons marry more than one wife...

Hey wrote on May 21, 2008 8:52 AM:Don't worry everyone,the Unions will take care of the situation. They will make sure that no employee will be made to do what they don't want to do like always.If an employee doesn't want to officiate a gay wedding, work hard, arrive at work on time, or actually earn their over paid wages then they will cry to their union that they are expected to work hard and that is not what their union rep told them.

DD Wiz wrote on May 21, 2008 9:13 AM:Are clerks who think interracial marriages are wrong allowed to deny licenses to mixed-race applicants? How about a clerk who just doesn't like African Americans? Or Latinos? Or overweight people? Bigotry is bigotry. And when acted upon by public officials on the job, it is illegal.

Oceanside wrote on May 21, 2008 9:26 AM:Following this line of thinking, excusing clerks who object to same sex marriage - if a clerk objects to certain races can they opt out based on their bias and racisim? This whole line of reasoning is flawed - the clerks are paid to do a job, part of that job is performing marriages. They are not there to judge the people being married or exercise their person biases. If they object to a certain part of their job they should find another job.

to ummmmmm wrote on May 21, 2008 9:26 AM:guess what, teachers attitudes towards conservative/republican students in all levels of schooling especially high school and college is a disgrace. teachers on the whole disrespect them and try to change them with low marks etc. I have seen it first hand and my kids have seen it also. If you think this is not true then you most likley are a democrat/union member.Unions protecting lazy/democrats are the downfall of this great nation.

RECONSIDERING wrote on May 21, 2008 9:28 AM:When my fiancee comes home from Iraq, we had planned to get married at the County Clerk's office in San Diego. However, after this... I don't think that I can get married at a place which feels they must put their moral obligations before their work ethic. I'm sorry if I'm not making sense, I am rather upset. It's like this: who are they to impose their personal morals at the work place? Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I cannot believe the audacity of these people. It's like me going into Walmart and having a cashier tell me she doesn't support the war in Iraq, so she's not going to sell me the items for my fiancees care package. An employee who refuses to do their job based solely on their personal beliefs/opinions should be fired and replaced. I also don't think I can get married at a location that does not support the right for two consenting adults to get married, especially considering that if we were getting married decades ago it was considered illegal for Mexican me to marry my white fiancee. Shame on you San Diego County Clerk's office and shame on you Gregory Smith.

Sodomists condemning sodomists wrote on May 21, 2008 9:37 AM:The bible condemns sodomy which is defined as either anal intercourse or oral sex. I wonder how many of you are abstaining from oral sex? If not then you are also a sodomist & are in clear violation of the bible. Gotcha!

Apollo wrote on May 21, 2008 9:49 AM:Re: I am so Tired (7:58 a.m.)
This is the kind of whining that just disgusts reasonable people.
No one ever asked this individual to do anything for anyone else.
If a couple decides to marry, whoever they are, it has no affect on this guy at all.
This does not "force" anything on you or your children.
Just knowing that somewhere, someone is doing something you wouldn't have done is not enough to give you the right to impose your evil, hateful, vicious, malicious will on them.
And by the way, it is not a choice. There is much scientific evidence to show that, yes, just like race, those with same-sex attraction are born that way.
But what if it wasn't? Even if it were a choice, it would be their choice, not yours.
That is what FREEDOM and LIBERTY are all about: the right to make your own personal choices that don't affect anyone else.
To Tired: Please, tell me how this affects you.

The City better have someone wrote on May 21, 2008 9:53 AM:there who can marry me to my daughter. Then on taxs I can file jointly and still claim my wife/child as dependant! I love California!

Three D wrote on May 21, 2008 10:08 AM:To Sodomists at 9:37 a.m.
How right you are about the Bibe condemning sodomy in Leviticus chapter 20:13 (though it does not define it exactly as you said).
The previous chapter (Lev 19) also prohibits cross breeding of cattle or grain, trimming one's beard, and tattoos.
Leviticus chapter 11 outlaws eating of shrimp, crab and pork.
Leviticus chapter 12 mandates ritualistic cleansing every woman must follow after menstruation, which I'm sure all the critics of gays follow, uhm, religiously.
And for those who believe Biblical marriage is "one man and one woman," actually it is one man and multiple women (for most of human history), with women owned as the chattel property of their husbands.
The Law of Moses explicitly permits polygamous marriage and sts rules in Deut 21:15-17. In Genesis chapter 29, Jacob (Israel) is given both Leah and Rachel (sisters) as wives at the same time.
Judges 8:30 acclaims Israeli war hero Gideon for his "many wives."
And of course there are the many wives given to David (1 Sam 25:43; I Sam 27:3; I sam 30:5;18; 2 Sam 5:13; I Chron 14:3) and 700 wives for Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), and not a hint of condemnation or criticism except in the singular instance where David killed Uriah to take his wife Bathsheba, and then only for the impropriety of killing another man for his wife, not for adding to his harem.
There are scores of additional scriptural verses that show the Bible support for plural marriage (well, for the men anyway).
So Bible believers, are you ready to live by the entire Law of Moses, or do you just cherry-pick the parts that conform to your prejudices?

Michael B. wrote on May 21, 2008 10:38 AM:Yes, lifestyle is a choice. Being GAY, ISN'T A LIFESTYLE! Neither is it a choice. Being an ignorant bigot is a lifestyle and a choice. Face it, the bigots lost in this one. Keep trying to shove your religion in my face! Keep that in the closet. Want to protect marriage? Try banning divorce (talk to Henry VII about that one), and most Las Vegas weddings (drive thru chapels?). Seems those make a mockery of it more than anything else.

DIVORCE ATTORNEY wrote on May 21, 2008 11:02 AM:I LOVE IT!! MORE DIVORCES FROM THE MARRIAGES$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Casey wrote on May 21, 2008 11:14 AM:Ok, so if I work for San Diego County and Jesus hold me not to marry red-headed people, do I have to?

I now see in Three D wrote on May 21, 2008 11:14 AM:But what if the new strain of cross bred grain was a bigger producer,tasted better & was more nutritious? At the risk of sounding like a Heretic (don`t burn me) It seems to me parts of the Bible may have been written by fools & chauvinists.

Dear City Clerk wrote on May 21, 2008 11:15 AM:Get a new job or go leave down south where the OLD days are still up-held.

If everyone on this topic did their homework on where marriage came from, they would know it started to ensure family members did not pro-create because of the medical issues......

Otherwise marriage is all in the eye of the person(s) who want to. And no one else should hold that against or discourage the people. Unless its your first cousin, mom, dad, brother or sister....come one people...Lets not go back in history we are to learn from our mistakes for a better tomorrow...

Shoot look at the disfunction of opposite sex marriages and family troubles....

Bill wrote on May 21, 2008 11:19 AM:On another thread I said this would become a constitutional crisis and many scoffed.

Since precedent has ruled that free speech doesnt extend into the workplace, but freedom of religion does, where does that leave us now?

You cant fire a clerk for refusing to marry them. That would be a violation of their religious freedom.That would land the county in a lawsuit real fast that is backed by precedent and plenty of it.

The unintended consequences of this are going to create the crisis.

However, anyone who thinks that a civil union is equal to a marraige is flat out wrong and badly misinformed. A civil union does not have full faith and credit and isnt recognized by all states like a marraige is. The civil union can utilize the power of attorney for those rights but only after expensive legal fees that burden gays but not straight people.

That is discriminating.

Only when the discriminating elements are taken out will this thing be resolved.

No matter what some in here think, the will of the people isnt relevant here as long as the two forms of union remain so legally different.

The people can not legalize discrimiation with their votes and the constitution guarantees nobody that right.

However, equal protection is guaranteed.

The people who claim to be damaged by this decision are probably the same ones who think they have a right to be heard or a right to not be offended.

They dont have that right.

My concerns here are that this will turn into cover to discrimnate against religious people.

I care about all Americans rights to pursue happiness.

Not just some.

To Osider wrote on May 21, 2008 11:22 AM:I disagree...

Marriage should not be something that is governed if you want to get down to religious beliefs on the topic.

Since you (majority) say it is a religious belief...your right it is. Therefor who has the right to say when and who get to get married? Seriously each individual person has the right to cliam a belief on this subject. And if it is two same-sex people then that is what they believe that is their right.

So to have even had this come to a vote should really never been done!

Marriage is a belief for the parites engaging and not for someone else to mangage whom, where, and when the parties go into such contract.

For all those voicing it is against thier religion to let this happen, You seem to forget your religion....No one should be condeming anyone else as wrong...only God can do that...REMEMBER...so PRactice what you preech!

To Apollo wrote on May 21, 2008 11:26 AM:It is a "force" when the people of California voted on ballot that they do not want same sex marriage legalized. That is a forced action on part of the courts. Just like you don't have to agree with me, You do not have have a right to make me agree with you. I as a parent am deeply concerned about this. This will bring our state to the next level and that may not be healthy. Do I think that homosexuality is wrong? Yes I do!! Do I think that if a person chooses to live their life like that, they should be condemned...No I don't. I do not like hearing about the hate crimes against gays. They don't deserve that. In a matter of fact, I do believe that that same sex partnership should have the rights of married couples.....that is what they want. The word marriage should be protected......between a man and women. I know that the bloggers will go crazy on this, but I don't care. I think the future should be carefully looked at. I mean at the rate we are going here the males in this world will not be necessary. All we need is a good scientist and a plexi dish to create a child.

SLIPPERY SLOPE wrote on May 21, 2008 11:49 AM:Here we go, with the truly desperate comparing same-sex marriages to polygamy, incest and, wait for it, someone is going to bring up animals.
Please, can we have a little sanity here?
Children and animals are not capable of valid consent; two consenting adults are.
And the law can define numerically what marriage is, such as two adult persons. But if you specify gender, such as "one man and one woman," then by definition you are discriminating based on gender and, as the Republican court decided, that violates the state Constitution which prohibits such discrimination. The Constitution says nothing, however, about specifying a number. Apples and bananas.

Second attempt at submission

You must allowed wrote on May 21, 2008 1:00 PM:one man to marry multiple wives or this decision is going to be going through the courts for years before anybody gets married, Trust Me!

Boater wrote on May 21, 2008 1:44 PM:You people who want to support gay/lesbian "marriage" might as well get used to the idea that come November, it will ALL be invalidated because the people of this State will overwehlmingly vote "YES" on a Constitutional amendment that will once and fo all, in California provide for MARRIAGE as a condition that exists for ONLY a man and a woman. So, take your smug butts to another State and have your fun there!

to SLIPPER SLOPE wrote on May 21, 2008 1:56 PM:My sister wants to marry me. I'm 40 and she's 36. Thanks for your apples.

KarenTrailOregon wrote on May 21, 2008 2:14 PM:unbelievable. Refuse to do their jobs?? fired them. they are public employees. DO YOUR JOB. I can not believe this is an issue.

To Boater wrote on May 21, 2008 2:28 PM:For me this has nothing to do with same-sexy marriage. It's all about equal rights for equal citizens. The unbelievable acceptance and encouragement of state sponsored discrimination against someone based solely on the grounds of sexual orientation is plain and simple un-American. Remember that our goverment was founded on the principle that all men are created equally. ALL men ... not just the straight ones. The fact that these 'anti-gay marriage' people argue like they are somehow superior to the rest of society is nothing but nauseating.

And here's some food for thought ... Go ahead and vote to change the states Constitution. It won't ultimately do you any good because no state can have one that is in direct contradiction to the federal one. Any vote in November will also be overturned ... and by the highest court at that ... unless you can change the rules on a national scale. And good luck with that one.

Apollo wrote on May 21, 2008 2:43 PM:Re:
To Apollo (11:25 a.m.)
Boater (1:44 p.m.)
To "To Apollo": You say it is "force" because the court overturned the will of the people?
What if the "will of the people" voted in an election to restore slavery?
To outlaw the Christian religion?
Wouldn't you expect the Court to uphold the Constitution.
The job of the courts is to INTERPRET THE LAW.
When two laws conflict, then if they are of equal rank (such as two statutes) the one that is later takes precedence and is presumed to repeal the earlier one. When two laws are of different rank (a statute vs. the Constitution), the one that is higher in rank takes precedence.
That is what the court did.
To "Boater": The proposed initiative, if it qualifies, has no retroactive provision. Any marriages performed before it takes effect will still be valid.

Oceanside wrote on May 21, 2008 2:44 PM:The Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of all citizens and promises equal rights - so how can any state deny a marriage or tell you what kind of car to drive or where you can live or how many children you can have. If we're equal that means we're ALL equal no matter what.

Oceanside wrote on May 21, 2008 2:46 PM:To Boater - wonderful post - well said!

I am going to wrote on May 21, 2008 2:51 PM:marry myself for tax purposes! And also because I am soooo pretty:)

Osider wrote on May 21, 2008 3:58 PM:So, who's the husband and who's the wifey?

To Osider wrote on May 21, 2008 4:04 PM:What difference does it make and why do you care?

Your silence speaks volumes wrote on May 21, 2008 4:20 PM:Nobody has answered the question about oral sodomy. Thats because y`all are doing it. You choose to follow the parts of the Bible that suit you.

Norman Bates wrote on May 21, 2008 4:49 PM:Mother and I are getting married next week, then it is off honeymoon at a very nice Motel.

Anything different wrote on May 21, 2008 5:02 PM:Last week I was a married heterosexual male. This week I am a married heterosexual male. Next year I will be a married heterosexual male. Please tell me how same sex marriages will negatively affect me?

Concerned One wrote on May 21, 2008 5:05 PM:All this crap on here and you censor my post? I don't get it.

excuse all employees wrote on May 21, 2008 5:36 PM: from offciating, can you blame them

Mike wrote on May 21, 2008 7:48 PM:"The Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of all citizens and promises equal rights. . ." Gays have the equal right to marry people of the opposite sex. They do not have the right to change the definition of marriage.

gina wrote on May 21, 2008 8:10 PM:Same-sex couples are just as committed in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, say researchers who have studied the quality of adult relationships and healthy development.

I think everything has two sides. Some ppl may like the same-sex marriage better. I know some ppl on the site BiLoves have such kind of marriage and they have a great life. So I think legal adoption for them is more fair.

Mike wrote on May 21, 2008 8:48 PM:"Nobody has answered the question about oral sodomy..." Oral sodomy is not in the Bible. If I'm mistaken please provide where it it's mentioned. What is mentioned is the following: Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." It's homosexual sex that is condemned, not a specific sex act.

Apollo wrote on May 21, 2008 9:00 PM:Re: Mike (7:48 p.m.)
In other words, everyone has the equal right to marry who Mike thinks they should marry.
Sorry, Mike, but if the law says you have to marry someone of the opposite sex, then it is inherently discrimination based on gender. It means if you are a male you MUST choose a female and discrimante against all males and if your are a female you MUST choose a male and discriminate against all females.
The equal right is to be able to marry the person you are attracted to.
For us heteros, it is easy because we are the majority and tradition favors our orientation.
Saying someone different from me has the equal right to be like me is absurdity in the extreme.
Why is this so hard to understand?
And, your "sacred" definition of marriage used to mean that women were property, husbands and wives had to be from the same ethnicity, and men could have multiple wives. We have used enlightened laws many times to change the "definition" of marriage. Websiter did not write either the Bible or the Constitution, the fromer which is not the basis of our laws and the latter which is.
When bans on interracial marriage were prohibited, it was an outrage to many; today we think nothing of it.
Our children will think nothing of people being married to whoever they are attracted to.

Three D wrote on May 21, 2008 9:07 PM:Right, Mike at 8:48 p.m., you have quoted and interpreted Lev. 20:13 correctly, as I also noted in my 10:28 a.m. post.
Now, are you saying we are under the law of Leviticus?
Do you prohibit crabs, shrimp, lobster and pork?
Do you require your wife (who is, of course, one of many and your chattel property) to follow the ritual cleansing each month on completion of menstruation? And all the other items I noted in my 10:28 (with scriptural citations)?
Or are you cherry-picking the verses the agree with your pre-determined prejudices?

Mike wrote on May 21, 2008 9:14 PM:Mike, by your own logic you have to realize that if the constitution and "your" religion each define marriage differently then you still must follow the constitution. Who's definition of marriage are you thinking of? Free country means free to live the way you want, not free to declare your views as law.

To Michael B. wrote on May 21, 2008 9:20 PM:I have to agree with you....drive thru chapels are a slap in face to those who appreciate and value marriage. I wonder what kind a promotions or plannings are going on in vegas for gay weddings right now? I am sorry though I don't agree with you on lifestyle and choices. Homosexuality is choice....no one is born gay. It is a road that is chosen later on in life. Just like choosing to be heterosexual. I really don't think anyone here is pushing bible beliefs, or condeming gays..It is just about protecting the word marriage. This is going to get real interesting real quick. I would say show up and vote in Novemeber, but the courts just shut you down anyway so why bother.

Kevin wrote on May 23, 2008 6:51 AM:Wow...does this mean that gay clerks don't have to officiate at any heterosexual marriages cuz they might object to the practice? And then Catholic clerks don't have to preside over civil ceremonies which have one Catholic and one Protestant getting married because the Church doesn't recognize the marriage? How about having to marry fat people, or people the clerk doesn't find attractive, or objects to the clothing or hair styles?

The county clerk's office is not an extension of anyone's personally selected "religious" beliefs, and the only morality employed should be upholding the law and serving ALL the public - not just the public the church you chose likes.

Some public employee's 'religious" beliefs have nothing to do with the job - OR the civil ceremony. In fact, the civil ceremony is designed specifically to not be a state-sponsored religious endorsement.

I can see the county being sued for attempting to use religion as an excuse not to serve the public.

The clerk's job is not to "approve" of anyone's marriage under the law. THEY have nothing to do with the ceremony beyond performing their duties as representatives of the county and state of California.

Kevin wrote on May 23, 2008 7:03 AM:Oh...I can see it now. A straight couple walks into the clerks office to get a civil marriage ceremony, and one of them is wearing a cross necklace. The clerk, who is an atheist, can refuse to marry them because it violates their "deeply held" religious and moral beliefs to let any "religious" person marry outside of their church.

A clerk discovers that one heterosexual partner is a divorced Catholic but the Church hasn't recognized the dissolution of the marriage, even though the state has. . .and that clerk refuses to perform the ceremony because he/she is a strict Catholic and cannot endorse a civil ceremony which isn't approved by the Church.

A clerk is an Irish protestant and notices that one of the couple's have an Irish last name - only to then discover that person is Catholic. They refuse to perform the civil ceremony because Catholics and Protestants don't like each other.

Essentially, the County is attempting to establish here that non-religious ceremonies are held hostage to personally-selected churches, and that any employee can refuse to perform their duties any time they wish to invoke a manufactured "religious" belief.

If someone's religious beliefs render them incapable of performing a public service to the ENTIRE public, they need to seek employment with their Church and stop expecting taxpayers to pay them a salary to "practice' their "religion" by refusing to serve the public.

Kevin wrote on May 23, 2008 7:04 AM:To Michael B. - What an interesting thought....would you care to describe for us the moment when you "chose" to be a heterosexual?

Kevin wrote on May 23, 2008 7:06 AM:To Apollo - So now you are saying that gay citizens do not have the right to petition their government - nor the Courts - nor the Constitution, without the consent of heterosexuals. . .yet heterosexuals don't have to ask gay people to approve of THEIR marriages.

Since when is someone else's wedding your business? Do we get the same right to object to you getting married?

Gary wrote on May 24, 2008 8:09 PM:I find the arguements of the so called religious persons specious at best, judgemental, in direct violation of the tenets of your Bible.

You seem to look upon us gays as vile creatures, created by the Devil, himself, only fit to be rejected, and reviled, used as a weapon to make others cow before your imagined moral superiority.

You speak of the sanctity and sacredness of marriage, and yet, at every turn, you make mockery of your words.

Take a look at the police blotter, in any city, at any day of the week, and see what your sanctity has wrought.
How many children have been molested, tortured, starved, killed, sold into prostitution by the parents who are supposed to guard, protect, and cherish them?

My life partner and I have been in a committed relationship for the past 36 years, and the majority of our friends are heterosexual. Friends, who cherish us for who we are, and the fact that we reaffirm, every day, that two PEOPLE can love and devote their lives to creating a better world based on kindness, loving, and tolerance for others, regardless of their beliefs.

Perhaps if you expended your energy on doing kindnesses, instead of preaching hatred, intolerance, and bigotry, you'd be too busy to spend time patting yourself on the back at how "holy" you are.

Just remember that it's not your place to judge anyone. That is God's, and God's alone. So, as you judge others, you're judged in turn, and by a higher power whose wrath you will surely face on your day of reckoning.

To Boater wrote on May 30, 2008 10:41 AM:I'll take your bet, sir. The people of California, come November, will have had several months of friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives getting married with all the joy that comes with it. They will not see the end of the world, they will see an increase of joy and committment. They will see the homophobic scare tactics for what they are.

California resident wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:01 PM:I think that these clerks need to issue regardless of their beliefs, It is their job. And these posts just prove that Marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT. Seperation of church and state so since they are not in church and work for the county of the state they need to issue !!

James wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:05 PM:I want to know since when did we get to choose to pay for taxes for their children to attend school, or to hep pave their roads etc... When do I get to choose not to do that??