Leslie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:50 PM:Mr. Tyler thinks: "Same-sex couples have argued that their personal sexual choices require public acceptance in order for equal protection to exist."

County employees are not the "public."

Does he think a person religious choices require public acceptance in order for equal protection to exist?

A county employee SERVES THE PUBLIC and works according to law.

If there is a conflict with an employees choice of religious beliefs and job duties, they are free to transfer or seek other employment.

The County Courthouse is NOT a church.

paul wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:57 PM:They are county empolyees. Do your job or get out.

Michael wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:42 PM:It's ridiculous. There are religious objections to many different sorts of marriages, and yet it is not the business of the civil servant to discriminate on the basis of these. For example, many religions prohibit intermarriages, but it would be ridiculous, say, for an Orthodox Jew to refuse to marry a Jew to a Christian. This is the same thing!

Greg wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:05 PM:This sounds soooo christian. What the heck is wrong with them?

Ridiculous wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:23 PM:There is not a bona fide legal question at all. These people are county employees and must perform their jobs without discrimination against ANY person. They are not priests in a church or pastors in a church performing a religious marriage. They are perfoming civil marriages and they either do it or get transferred through accomodation. Not a legal question...but certain shows their narrow mindedness.

Embarrassed wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:39 PM:As of Tuesday, June 17th, I am absolutely ashamed and embarrassed to be a California resident. To those who are STILL trying to uphold righteousness...I applaud you. May God have mercy on us all!

brad wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:00 PM:we don't let firefighters or police refuse to serve selected members of the public. this is no different. gay couples pay those public employees their ridiculously high salaries the same as straight couples.

MJ wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:46 PM:This will all be resolved in November. So, to the subject county employees -- quietly bide your time and play along with this charade. As for "requiring public acceptance" ... that of course will never happen. Tolerance perhaps, but acceptance -- not a chance. In most healthy (that is, mentally healthy) heterosexuals there is a visceral aversion (whether admitted or not) -- for good reason ... none of us would be here otherwise.

Shell Answer Man wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:41 AM:These people need to seek employment in the religious sector and not the public/government sector. A separation between church and state has been established. Please educate yourselves about the difference. This country isn't controlled by religious zealots. Is it?

logfish wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:27 AM:Someone needs to be fired over this to be made an example. This is just one issue. In the future it can be an entirely different issue or task that our city employees refuse to perform. I pay taxes. I'm assuming that money goes to pay the city employees. I can't choose who and who does not get paid with my money. Make an example. You can't make an omlet without cracking a few eggs. There is a reason you are getting paid to work. I don't get to choose what tasks I perform at work. I do everything I am assigned to do with a smile. If I don't like it, I can walk. Same old story. If you don't like the job, there's the freakin door and guess what, there's someone else walking right in totally willing to perform whatever duty you don't want to do and most likely for a little less money and a way better attitude. City employees got it pretty good. Check the job ads. Check the economy. Wanna eat? Get back in your cubicle and process the paperwork. Gay or straight, doesn't matter. What matters is food for the kids and gas in the tank. Oh and make sure you pay the cable bill...

That is their right wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:08 AM:and they should sue the County. You don't change the rules in the middle of someones employment. When they took the job they knew what it did and did not entail. No one told them they might be required to marry gays. Sue the County my friends the citizens are behind you!

the dude wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:14 AM:fire them

Vista Native wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:20 AM:If California embarrasses you, you have the right to leave just as if you don't like your job don't let the door hit you on the way out. As for suing...just what we need. Will you pick up the bill? You can change the rules in the middle of employment. When other companies take over companies plenty of rules change. You get paid to do a job that is told to you by a superior, if you want to do the things that you want and believe, then you need to be your own boss, but with that you still can not discriminate. I am Christian but I am not the one to judge these marriages. If they are happy and are law abiding what is the issue? Life is too short to carry this hatred. Doesn't it say somewhere to love your neighbor as you want God to love you? God have mercy on "all" of us.

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:22 AM:Sorry, to refuse to do your job because of your religion means you need to find another job. Today's Christians are scary.

oside mom wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:23 AM:People should not be forced to act against their beliefs as a condition of employment. We have also seen this on the abortion front where hospital workers are allowed to refrain from participating in abortion if it's against their beliefs. The ruling is so recent that I can understand some county employee's opposition. After all, does tolerance mean that we must all hold that gays are acceptable? Tolerance also should mean that we RESPECT the beliefs of those county workers as well, shouldn't it?
I hate the fact that the word "tolerance" when it's used to refer to something in the gay community seems to mean that everyone must accept their views unconditionally, and without reservation. Since when has "tolerance" become such a one-way street?

Unfortunately wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:40 AM:It will take people standing up and walking from their jobs to make any kind of a statement. Christians, even though this country was founded on those beliefs, are not protected. Ironic, their thoughts and beliefs are put aside. When a country has a problem with living up to and teaching their children to live by the 10 Commandments what can you say. Any wonder we have fatherless families, babies having babies, record amount of people in prison etc.

logfish RIGHT ON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:44 AM:They forget they are PUBLIC employees. The management needs to go! What a stupid decision to make! Just another example of the mixing of Church and State which is illegal! If MR SMITH doesn't know the LAW, he needs to go TODAY!!

To oside mom wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:46 AM:This issue has nothing to do with tolerance. It has to do with people trying to pick and choose which parts of their job they will or will not do. These are publically paid employees whose job it is to serve the public ... not just the part of the public they like or agree with.

Will wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:56 AM:MJ reveals the true prejudice at the root of the issue here, the source of all objections to gay marriage.

MJ's says: "In most healthy (that is, mentally healthy) heterosexuals there is a visceral aversion (whether admitted or not) -- for good reason ... none of us would be here otherwise."

There is also a "visceral aversion" in most "healthy people" to the physically handicapped, the overweight, the unattractive, the socially awkward, and those from different cultures.

This "visceral aversion" served to ensure primitive man would mate with those individuals most likely to be accepted into the tribe.

But reason and self-knowledge allows us to evolve BEYOND our selfish, discriminatory thinking, BEYOND our animal instincts, to feel empathy for their situation and kindness toward those who are born different from us. This humanity is what propels us beyond mean, angry tribalists into higher order beings.

Let these people marry. They are no threat to us. WE are the threat to us, by creating anger and resentment when we act on our primitive "visceral aversions" rather than our reason and humanity.

WHAT wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:58 AM:What the heck do the COUNTY OFFICIALS mean "without any problems?" They take an oath of office to represent the PUBIC NOT THE CHURCH! This is a classic case of discrimination, blatantly flaunted in this article! They all should be terminated! If these elected officials have FPPC complaints filed on them, they will not like it! Bring on the investigators!

Sue The County wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:00 AM:Let the taxpayers pay for the lawsuit, then maybe we can get the knuckle dragging morons out of positions of authority. And for you who approve of these marriages, move to New York, because the voters are voting in November, fools.

Terrils wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:03 AM:oside mom
[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:23 AM:
People should not be forced to act against their beliefs as a condition of employment.

What part of we do not live in a theocracy don't you understand? The rule of law, not of Christianity, is our rule as a nation, and it requires that all citizens receive their rights, not just the citizens who share your religion. If you want to serve your religion, do so in a church. No one's stopping you. When you are paid by tax dollars, you work for all taxpayers, not just the ones you agree with. These people were not forced to work for the government. They chose to. Now they should choose to do what we pay them for, or find another job.

To Oside Mom wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:04 AM:For clarifiacation, when I worked in the hospital, you were asked if you had an objection to caring for a patient having an abortion or complications from an abortion. It was made very clear that, while they would make every effort not to assign you to such a patient, if it were necessary for any reason, you must still provide patient care with the same compassion and respect you would any other patient. These are government employees, they must complete there duties in accordance with the law. If they don't want to do that, then they need to make changes in their job status. I don't see a problem with attempting to accomidate their values, but in the end, if there isn't someone there that chooses to do the same sex marriages, then they need to perform them with the same degree of compassion and professionalism they would any other marriage.

straight not narrow wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:58 AM:I fully support the rights of gays to marry one another. But let's face it, many people have a visceral aversion to officiating at these marriages. It's rooted at least partly in their religious beliefs and it's sacred to them, whether or not we agree, and whether or not the law agrees. Furthermore, half of the deputized clerks could opt out of this on most days without it affecting gay couples at all. Looks like Smith is trying to find a reasonable middle ground that fits the letter of the law. Still, I feel for the employees who get reassigned to different jobs.

Excuse me wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:06 AM:when did the county hire these clerks, before they decide to change the laws? It sound to me like these clerks have a very strong case against the county on blantant descimination of religious beliefs. If these clerks were given an opportunity prior to employment it would be agreed they should move to another duty or department. But as they didn't know what the pc county would do on demand by a minority and some illegal judges decision, they must be able to retain their prior positions and let the senior staff marry the gays. SUE THE COUNTY!!

Insubordination wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:06 AM:To refuse to do your job is "insubordination." If these people don't want to do their job, fire them and get someone who will!!

where wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:10 AM:Maybe I missed it, but where in the article does it say that Christians were refusing to do their job? You don't think Muslims are equally against same-sex marriage? Glad people are still quick to blame and criticize.

LLD wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:13 AM:The voter's voice of California was that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The State of California Supreme Court took it upon themselves to overrule that vote. WAKE UP PEOPLE...We are being ruled by a bunch of liberals who don't care about the "TRADITIONS" our country was built on and they obviously don't care about what we the people want either.
God will punish these people who have condoned immoral sexual behavior, whether it be in the here and now or in front of the Great White Throne.

OMG wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:21 AM:OMG...I'll perform a gay marriage. With high gas prices, housing market, food cost etc.... and about 20 people don't want to do the job, there another 20 that wlll....Sign me up....That means I would get a whole lot of PAID OVERTIME :-)

Kel wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:22 AM:To Oside Mom - you ask the question "After all, does tolerance mean that we must all hold that gays are acceptable?" Yes, and people of color are acceptable, and people with disabilities are acceptable, and people of various religions and national origins are acceptable. Discrimination is wrong no matter what group you choose to single out. If you don't want to do the job-find another. I don't know of too many "Christian" pole dancers, do you? No, because they wouldn't take a job like that that goes against their religious beliefs. The same reasoning should apply in any other job. If your religion and beliefs are SOOOOO important to you, find a career where you won't be morally challenged. But as long as you provide a service to the general public and not through a religious institution for likeminded religious adherants, you don't have the right to discriminate against anyone.

in time wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:23 AM:It's just a matter of time. God is not mocked.

Keep up the good work wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:24 AM:Right on for those employees! I love people with backbone and they must know there are many people backing them.
There's just something wrong with same sex marriages---eeewww!

Taxpayer wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:35 AM:I just decided that I don't want to pay taxes anymore if it supports bigots and people who don't remember who they work for like the clerks who refused to perform same-gender marriages. Just like the person said above, the firefighter or police don't have the right to refuse service because they are employed by me, the public. This is no different. These people need to be transferred immediately to the boondocks where they can't do any more harm. Perhaps Santee where many hate groups already live according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

max wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:54 AM:Dear Oceanside mom. you brought up the abortion situation where some doctors have the right not to perform. I defend that right even though I am pro-choice. The problem will be if the doctor decides to perform abortion on some instead of others based on her/his belief and that's wrong. It is the same for the County employees. They cannot pick and choose who to marry, uder the law is everyone or nobody. Please remember, Church and State separation are our constitutional rights, the same rights that allow you to profess your religion freely and anywhere. Because we are all equal under the law and because Marriage is a civil institution and not a religion belief, the answer is very easy, garantee to everyone the same right. Dear mom in Oceanside Christians 60 years ago were also against interacial marriages. Thank GOD we did not listen to them.

ShawnP wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:57 AM:I am a Christian, and a member of the military; I cannot refuse to serve certain people because of my religious beliefs.
Those employees should be suspended or terminated; they are public servants, and cannot pick and choose who they'll serve and who they won't serve. As stated in other posts, there is a separation of church and state, if they don't realize or can't accept it, they need to find a different job.

To LLD wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:22 AM:As you may or may not recall, the overwhelming majority of these judges were appointed by Republican governors.
Take a minute and consider the action of these 'activist' county employees.
And as a person of Native American blood, I will point out that your 'Traditions' are not necessarily mine.

Jake wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:33 AM:Public employee's cannot hide behind religious belief's in their effort to NOT serve the public they find offensive. I'd have offered, as a good boss, an alternate job assignment on a permanent basis, sinc the clerk who handles marriages will have to do same sex marriages on a ongoing basis. They can then chose to accept the new assingment or not.

As much as some would hope, this country is not run by the Catholic church and the beliefs of it's members.

MJ wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:38 AM:There is a presumption here that those with a visceral aversion to gay marriage are by definition Christian. I posit that the aversion is a deeply rooted psychological one that has evolved to ensure our survival. There is a big difference between tolerance and embracing a significant deviation from the norm. With that said, if one chooses to work for the government, one has to work by the rules, or find another job. The proper thing to do is to work towards changing the rules -- that is what will happen in November.

Heterosexual woman wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:51 AM:The people who perform the marriages had no idea that some wacko judges would decide that its okay for gays to be married! When they took the job, it was between a man and a woman! These judges went against the Voters' voices! hopefully it will be overturned in November. Basically - those judges think that our majority vote on the issue doesn't matter!
I think the clerks who object should be allowed to not perform the weddings. Its only fair to them. I'd consider it sexual harrassment if I had to go to work and marry lesbians and gays. It would make my stomach upset. Its also adamantly against my religion. No - I'm not catholic but I am another mainstream religion and gay marriage goes against all of my beliefs.

Diversity wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:02 PM:Wow, did some of you grow up in the USSR? It sounds like you want to purge people with religious beliefs from the government. News break: this is the USA, land of the free. There should be no religious test for government employees. If they have a religious need, you try to accomodate it. Here, employees are not being allowed to pick and choose who they serve. Instead, since they have moral objections to their jobs, they are being offered jobs in other departments. If we truly believe in celebrating diversity, then we will be sensitive to the needs of all people, and not start screaming for these people to be fired.

esteban wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:23 PM:Thanks NCT...you made it clear that I don't have a right to an opinion.

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:24 PM:Refusing to do their job is refusing to do their job. While it is nice that reassignment was offered, these PUBLIC employees committed acts of discrimination that would be just as much cause for termination as if they refused to perform an inter-racial marriage no matter what the stated grounds. Fire the lot of them, if for no other reason than gross insubordination. Regards, Alf.

genek wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:40 PM:"Maybe I missed it, but where in the article does it say that Christians were refusing to do their job?"

It doesn't. That's the problem with this entire non-story. The clerk told his employees he would accomodate any religious issues, employees who requested accomodation were told that the accomodation would be in the form of a transfer to another assignment where they didn't perform any weddings, some of the employees chose to take him up on the accomodation, some chose to withdraw their requests. Nobody refused to do their jobs, nobody was disciplined, nobody was fired. End of story.

GettingMarried wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:42 PM:Who needs these employees anyway? Fire them! Job responsibilities in any job change. You have to deal with it. If you don't like it, then get out! There are plenty of other hard working citizens who are waiting in line for a county job.

I've hired a Christian reverand as an officiant to perform our wedding. That's right, a Christian. The caterer is confirmed, the band booked, rings chosen, invitations ready to go...and the best part about all this besides marrying my loving partner of 11 years is that you crazed brainwashed bible-toting fanatics can't do a thing to stop my wedding!

I praise the States of California and Massachussets for having the guts to recognize that all it's citizens have the right to marry whomever they desire. Black and Caucasion, Asian and Black, Hispanic and Asian, Gay and Straight! Why do you people care? Are your lives that shallow that you have no other reason to stand on your soap boxes and hide behind your bibles? How does this freedom given to the gay citizens of this state impact your daily lives? God take pity on your sorry souls!
If you don't like the way it is in California then I suggest you all start packing and move to the deep South where you can enjoy the company of other bigots and narrow minded people!

Whatsamazing wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:54 PM:This is the only county in CA that clerks objected to doing their job. I thought we were becoming a progressive modern county. Guess I was wrong.

Time to call for wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:00 PM:the Judges removal, when they feel they are above the law of the American citzens and there votes, maybe a little prision time might wake everyone up. As far as I know we are not living in Mexico.

About time wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:12 PM:I am so happy that the state of california has finally decided to extend the same rights to all its citizens.
I would like to comment in response to those who are outraged that the vote to make marriage between a man and a woman was overruled by the courts. In this case, no, your votes do not matter because they do not conform with the constitution. This is what our high courts are for, to judge whether or not laws are constitutionally valid. The exclusion of gays and lesbians from the legal institution of marriage denies them equal protection under the law.
If the majority of Californians voted not to allow blacks and whites to marry, the courts could, and should, strike this action down immediately because of its violation of civil rights.
To those of you who are so disgusted and embarrassed by this wonderful progress, time is running out. More and more people are in support of gay marriage, and before long this injustice will be abolished throughout the country. It may not be this year or next year, but its coming. You are entitled to your opinion and your religious beliefs, but as this country has managed to maintain some separation of church and state over the last seven and a half years, your religions have no authority to inhibit others.
If you want a country run by religion, move to Iran, that is what a theocracy looks like.

Diversity wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:27 PM:I'm surprised anyone has stuck around with GettingMarried for 11 years, for apparently the world revolves around that person. Nobody refused to give anyone a license. Some of you have giant chips on your shoulders and you want to take it out on some public employees. Those bible thumpers don't like doing their jobs anymore, so let's crucify them! You guys are a real piece of work.

Whatsamusing wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:37 PM:Progressives want to force clerks to do the jobs they are assigned, or fire them, rather than offer them transfers. Tyrants!

waitingfornovember wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:52 PM:Once again the NCT refuses to put out everyones opions and thoughts. My input was valid and true, but NCT refused to post it...Thanks NCT, your colors are showing again...

No Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:54 PM:Their employer committed an act of discrimination by not offering these clerks reassignment beforehand to those of them who had bona-fide religious objections to performing their redefined jobs. The County is rectifying the problem by offering these clerks different assignments. Understandably the County didn't have much time to prepare for June 17, so the County should not be held at fault. However, to now fire these clerks as you suggest would be discriminatory and subject the County to a nasty legal battle.

Do your job wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:58 PM:If they are allowed to discriminate against same-sex marriages, then it opens the door for discrimination for other reasons too. It is unacceptable and they shouldn't be allowed to refuse.

The same should go for all employees, not just county employees. What next, refusal to open an IRA account for a client, because your primary beneficiary is your spouse and you are of the same sex????

There comes a point..... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:05 PM:At what point do workers have the right to refuse to do objectionable things? Morally objectionable things?

Even though exterminating Jews was ok and "legal" under the Nazi government, it was ruled by the world to be illegal to do it. The workers who did it, some against their will, were equally guilty.

what if wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:24 PM:what if the couple was your sister, brother,Mom, Dad, son or daughter, etc. Would if my a difference? Would you still refuse to marry them? I am a nurse and if I refused service to anyone it would be considered abandonment. There are pros and cons to EVERY situation. What is the job description of these people? Does it mention they do not have to marry any specific religion, gays, blacks, hispanic etc.?

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:32 PM:= Dear oside mom (8:23 AM). You seem not to understand that when you work for the public, you do not get to choose your customers.

Your argument is the same one I heard in Mississippi when justices of the peace were forced to perform inter-racial marriages. Shame on you. You are in fact intolerant.

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:48 PM:= To Excuse me (10:06 AM). You are excused. And don’t come back.

You seem not to understand that laws change, and the fact that the law changed to permit same-sex marriage after a clerk’s date of employment is no excuse at all for refusing to perform ceremonies. You must adhere to the law when you work for the public. Bigoted religious beliefs carry no weight here. Non-compliant public employees are free to resign or be accept reassignment. What if you had a Muslim county clerk who objected to officiating at a wedding of a Jew and a Muslim, or of a Sunni with a Shia?

We all have our peculiar religious idiosyncrasies and personal principles. But they cannot be permitted to impede one’s job functions when it comes to serving the public.

shelli wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:53 PM:These county employees didn't take on their jobs with the county in their departments with the expectation or expectation that they would have to perfom same sex marriages. This is a new expectation thrown on these county employees. It is discrimination against these employees to insist they perform same sex marriages, whether it's a religious belief or a personal ethic. Marriage is not between same sex couples, but man and woman. There is a God and there is a right and wrong way to live, according to God's word. God's Word the Bible is tried and true whether everyone wants to believe it or not. Of course those that live against God's word will put the word of God down, because they want to live how they wish without guilt. Psychology 101 and Biblical as well.

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:11 PM:= To MJ (11:38 AM). Your “visceral aversion” to gay marriage is unnatural. Your premise that the evolutionary process, because of the necessity for species survival, necessarily has an aversion to gay sexual attraction is superficial and false. The question has been raised endlessly as to why Nature keeps producing gay men over many millennia at approximately the same percentage generation after generation, yet gays never become extinct. It would sound reasonable that, because gay men cannot reproduce, the GAY GENE would cease being reproduced, and gay men would eventually become extinct. Yet they do not. Nature and genetics are far more complicated and beautiful than your simplistic linear thinking. Nature has a reason for assuring the survival of gay men. Gay men in fact assist in the survival of the human species. Consider also that there are at least 500 other species in which homosexuality and same-sex attraction is present. This characteristic is trans-species, trans-generational, and assured by Nature and evolution.

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:21 PM:= I assure Heterosexual woman (11:51 AM) that here condition is not abnormal. Why, there are still people in the Deep South who think as you do, and have never changed their religious belief every since mixed-marriages become LEGAL. There are some who, even to this day, would refuse to perform a mix-marriage ceremony, because it is, as they adamantly maintain, unnatural and ungodly.

Oh well, some people change with the times, and some do not. Personally, I have never felt my own life was threatened, or that society was endangered by a good Caucasian marrying a person of a different race. And the same is true with same-sex marriages. Let people be happy together, and create stable relationships. This is good for society.

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:26 PM:= Thanks, Alf (12:24 PM). You always say it truthfully and succinctly. QUOTE ‘… these PUBLIC employees committed acts of discrimination … END QUOTE.

JSten wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:26 PM:Teh City, the county, the state go out of their way to showcase their forwsrd thinking policy of non-descrimination including Sexual Orientation. Tolerance and diversity are the buzzwords here.

Employees who cannot in good conscience obey the written non-discrimination policies alreadt set forth should be treated the same as if they refuse to marry a mixed race couple, or a dog and a cat (which according to the religious right is the "other comibinations" mentioned).

To Solon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:26 PM:Name them! Can't can you? "Consider also that there are at least 500 other species in which homosexuality and same-sex attraction is present."

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:34 PM:= Whatsamazing (12:54 PM) is that whatsamazing is so uninformed. Clerks all up and down the State have objected to performing same-sex marriages, mostly in remote inland counties populated by retrograde religious Republicans. Certainly happened in neighboring Riverside County. Did Whatsamazing not hear about Kern County after all the brouhaha? Kern county officials objected so strongly that they stopped performing ALL marriage ceremonies … yes, even for heterosexuals. This is civilization at its most advanced.

county employee wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:38 PM:I work for the county. Come over to me. ill marry anyone. its my job, its what i get paid to do regardless if its male and female, female and female, male and male, human or non human. Im sure everyone does something at your job that you dont like to do, but you have to.

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:38 PM:= Outstanding comments by "About time" (1:12 PM). Your clear thinking and articulation are the best of the day. Thank you.

Unincorporated NCounty wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:45 PM:Thank you to VISTA NATIVE 8:20am VISTA GRANNY 8:22am WILL 8:56am ALF 12:24pm and all others that are rational, able to think and understand what CIVIL SERVICE and CONSTITUTION means.

You are all fortunate to have a paying job with the County Government. Probably your salaries, benefits and retirement are much better than working for any religious organization and other businesses such as real estate, Vons, etc.

Government and Private Job descriptions at time of hire are subject to change with or without notice.

Your Government Job must be at the same level of delivery to all you serve, not based on your religious beliefs.

USA rules: The Majority protects the Minority.

Bible rules: Do unto others as you would have others do to you. Love thy neighbors.

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:51 PM:Well, "No Alf" at 1:54PM, refusing to do their job is grounds for termination. That they were offered reassignment shows compassion from their employer where none is deserved. If these people do not want to serve ALL the public, let them find a job that their employer allows the employee to dictate who they will and will not serve. Simple. Regards, Alf.

JSen wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:51 PM:Is there a legal definition of Moral?

Is there a legal requirement or test for morality?

What is morality, anyway? Wife beating for immoderate behavior? Chidren beating for obedience? Killing in the name of the almighty? All long held religious values-in use today. Its the one thing that all the worlds leading theologians can agree on-they hate the, um, well, you know.

I had a vision last night. It was in the form of a burning bush. We were having a discussion (the bush and I) that part of the Intelligent Design, is a set of safety features to inhibit man's/woman's tendency to overpopulate his/her space. the control is a genteic trigger that stops rampant reproduction, and channels all that excess sexual energy into a genetic dead end. Thus the population comes under control by divine guidance and design. It's part of the new commandments that we all will be receiving in a short while. Apparently someone is not at all pleased with what is happening down here.

You won't find it in your existing outdated manual on how to think or what to do, because there werent enough people to go around. Help is on the way. Pray, oh sweet lord, PRAY that you have been doign the right thing. Or, you may receive a serious reprimand.

Jen wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:53 PM:See, this is something that has always confused me. The idea that objecting to a civil marriage for religious reasons between any two people is ridiculous. Here's why: marriage before god and in church does not require the state's approval, it requires god's approval (lower case 'g' on purpose so as to refer to a general and generic god of your choice). It wouldn't be legal without state sanction but until recently, like within the last 150 years, a lot of people never got 'officially' married. They found a preacher or someone with a bible and just agreed they were married. The legal marriage doesn't have anything to do with god or religion at all. It is a contract signed by two people who are agreeing to combine their assets and assume legal responsibility for one another and their offspring. Civil marriage is business. It may sound unromantic but that's what it is. You can love someone forever and as passionately as anyone else ever could love with or without that contract but the contract helps with the practical aspects of marriage like taxes and property and inheritance. By seeking a ban on gay marriage they aren't stopping the emotions behind the relationship, they aren't ending homosexuality, they are denying them the right to enter into a legal contract, that's all. How is that a moral argument? You might as well pass a law saying gays can't vote or gays can't enter into a binding legal contract without supervision.

I love my husband, but I loved him before we were married and my brother in law and his partner have lived together longer than we have and their relationship is just as real and deep as ours. That love is there whether they choose to get a license or not. We chose to get married (legally) because we wanted to have that safety net the law provides us. Denying that to anyone is what is truly immoral if you ask me.

Seriously, next time someone says they are against gay marriage I'd really like to know what they think they are stopping. Do they honestly think that homosexuality will end if they are denied legal status or is it just being petty and ultimately pointless?

ALegalOpinion wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:00 PM:These people violated department policy. An employee has the God-given right to disagree with policy, but they DO NOT have the right to disobey it. That's insubordination and grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination

Tuck wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:13 PM:Those employees who refused need to be sent to re-education camps ASAP! What were they thinking?

Since the taxpayers voted wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:16 PM:they did not want this and we have fools that are going along with the minority, it seems to me alot of the officals can be arrested for aiding and abetting a crime against the voters of California.

Query wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:37 PM:To all of you who believe that the employees should be allowed to object on religious grounds, do you feel the same way about a muslim woman who wishes not to have her face revealed on a drivers license based on her religious beliefs? Do you believe that military personnel should be allowed to disobey orders that conflict with their religious beliefs?
History truly repeats itself. The very same discussions, arguements and debates occur whenever a class or group of people are finally "allowed in the club" so to speak. I really like the burning bush comment - very good! Perhaps all the religious zealots are so lost in their zealotry that they mistook the burning bush for a burning bush!!!

Justletus wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:38 PM:Hey NCTimes,
Just let people post what they want. We are all anonymous. Besides the comments will disappear at a moments notice. Unless it is libelous or threatening allow it. While your at it. Get rid of the curled down advertisement on the front page...I hate it.

Fire wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:43 PM:The judges that are making up their own laws!

No Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:54 PM:Make no mistake. Compassion alone is not spurring their employer to offer reassignment. The County is following EEOC guidelines under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. to make good faith efforts to accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs. Per the EEOC, an employee need only inform his employer about his religious needs for the employer to understand the conflict between
the employer’s expectations and the employee’s religious practices. Upon notice, an employer must provide “reasonable accommodation.” If no such accommodation can be made, an employee can be given a new job assignment or a lateral transfer as a last resort. Fire the employee and you have a lawsuit, and the employer has the burden to prove that it made
good faith efforts to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs and, if those efforts were unsuccessful, to demonstrate that it was unable reasonably to accommodate his beliefs without undue hardship. We don't hear of a hardship because there wasn't one. The public still got served.

They should have been told wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:09 PM:When hired, no employee, public or private, has to be told by an employer what could POSSIBLY happen in the future. Duties are described - marry anyone qualified who comes through the door and do it the same for all couples.

The onus is on the "religious" employee to talk about their beliefs with the employer at the TIME OF HIRE.

You don't wait until everyone with some objection unrelated to performing the job has quit, retired or moved on to enforce current (and changing) law.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES know this and are under oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the bible.

Wow wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:14 PM:Did we not VOTE to not accept gay marriages? What is this country comming to when they will break the law or voters will and pick and choose to marry gay people but they wont allow us to use marijuana for medical purposes, guess the county can pick and choose to enforce some laws and not the others!!!

Apollo wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:17 PM:Re: LLD (10:13 a.m.)
LLD doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
He/she makes a big deal about the "voter's voice." If the "voter's voice" passed an initiative reinstating slavery, or outlawing your particular religious denomination, would you expect the Court to respect the "voter's voice" on a matter that is clearly unconstitutional?
LLD makes the ridiculous statement about judges being a "bunch of liberals."
Six of the seven state Supreme Court justices are REPUBLICANS!
I'm a liberal and a Democrat. You want to recall all those judges and have the current electorate select their replacement? Fine with me! Go for it!

Janet wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:25 PM:So employees who object to blacks marrying whites should be able to refuse? Whites marrying Japanese? Whites marrying Hispanics? Exactly where would that stop? If they are offended, they should be able to say no? Well, if these people wanted to be married in the church, that's one thing. But the courts have agreed that they have the right to a civil marriage. It is the LAW of the land. I am offended by a lot of things I have to deal with in my job, but I still have to do my job or lose it.

AnotherLegalOpinion wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:27 PM:Federal law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. The employee has the responsibility to inform the employer of any aspect of his or her religious observance which will affect job responsibilities.

Just a bunch of frauds wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:42 PM:... Cry me a river. If they have to choose between their job & the unemployment line by God they`ll choose their job.

To BURNING BUSH wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:18 PM:(jen) 3:51 PM) = HA HA HA HA HA HA
Love your sense of humor.
There is probably a lot of truth in your levity, however.
When a behavior characteristic evolves over hundreds of thousands of years, it often has a reason, especially when it is found in so many higher species. (SOLON)

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:31 PM:= I don’t think I have ever had any disagreement with any opinion by Apollo. I particularly appreciate you comment (5:17 PM) that if the voters passed an initiative reinstating slavery, or outlawing a particular religious denomination, we would expect the Court to declare it unconstitutional.

Several times today (and many times on other blog sites) we see the statement QUOTE “Just wait until November when the voters ban same sex-marriage” END QUOTE.
Horse dookey! These people never consider the strong and growing possibility that this initiative will fail. These religious retards will not suddenly change their tune in November when their amendment fails. They have no intention to recognize the popular vote and allow same-sex marriage.

Bill wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:32 PM:Congrats to employees who stand up for beliefs - moral beliefs. Has nothing to do with religion. As long as government tries to redefine the meaning of words we are all in peril. Where the heck are the liberals now that your government is in the business of re-writing the dictionary?

Apollo wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:41 PM:Re: Another Legal Opinion 5:27 p.m.
You do not understand the meaning of employer duty to "reasonably" accommodate employees' religious beliefs.
If an employee adheres to a religious belief in human sacrifice, it doesn't have to be accommodated.
If an employee adheres to a religious belief that whites are superior to blacks, the employee cannot be allowed, on company time, to accommodate that prejudice. And that is exactly the same thing here. Employee accommodation means letting them wear certain clothing, hair styles, turbans, not shaving, that might otherwise violate grooming or dress code standards. It does not including harming or even discriminating against others. And the Reublican Supreme Court has determined that discriminating against gays is in that category, so your analogy does not apply at all.

SOLON wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:11 PM:= Earlier I stated that homosexual behavior has been observed in over 500 species of animals. A challenge came at 3:26 PM for me to name them all. I don’t think the editor will permit that, but the challenger can find many of them with simple Google search ‘Which includes all these words‘: homosexual behavior observed in many animals”.
Or if he wants the complete list he can obtain the 1999 book by noted researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl entitled Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. This list includes birds, mammals, insects, fish and all manner of animals, many many at the highest end of the evolutionary scale.

Among mammals some homosexuality has been observed in more than 40 percent of its members; some members are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives; others are one-night tricks … the behavior is unbelievable diverse, and goes from cutsie little creatures all the way up to big daddy walruses. The Bonobo Chimpanzes and Japanese macaques and the common house dog are some of the best know animals, but the Bottlenose Dolphins are particularly interesting, because the rank on a par with humans on the evolutionary scale. Among these dolphins homosexual activity occurs with about the same frequency as heterosexual play amongst these marine mammals. Male bottlenose dolphins are generally bisexual, but they go through periods of being exclusively homosexual. ...

Im not gay I dont care what consenting adults do with their lives. wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:15 PM:Does anyone think perhaps Religion was made up to control the masses? It worked for awhile. The basic commandments such as No kill No steal No Rape No abuse (physical & sexual) These are all good laws for society If only our courts would come down hard on these evil people . If all of the bigots would focus on these crimes the USA would be a better place. If it ain`t your life, butt out,

I am a man of science wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:31 PM:Solon tell us someting we don`t already know. Mother Nature made gays, straights, Bi`s & asexuals Oh & for some odd reason made human Hermaphradites. Scientific Knowledge.... Don`t be afraid of it. We can all still be loving, caring & moralistic. If God does exist he Is far bigger than your petty beliefs

YOUR FIRED wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:33 PM:Fire their butts and tell them to go work in a private church.

Heck... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:37 PM:I really don't care what people choose to do with their life. I say it's a good idea and then when they divorce, like half the people do in this country, then let them go thru the financial bickering that most couples do. No skin off my you know what....

John wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:05 AM:Have we become so insensitive, uncaring, and desensitized that we will force people to act against their own moral and/or religious convictions to satisfy our own immoral and sinful natures and behavior!? At the risk of sounding trite and "religious," like it or not the Bible is still the Word of God and has withstand the test of time. It would be wise to remember that God distroyed two cities for this kind of unnatural (and yes, sinful behavior), and they didn't issue licenses for such! Sodm and Gamorrah had nothing on us! God help us is right!

b wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:07 AM:According to several sources, marriage is legally defined as "A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage." Therefore, marriage between two people of the same sex is illegal, and the recent legislation allowing same-sex marriage in California is invalid. Kudos to the clerks who are trying to uphold the law by refusing to perform same-sex marriages.

bingo wrote on Jun 21, 2008 4:11 AM:Ya want to call it marriage get married in a church not at a justice of the peace.

Paul wrote on Jun 21, 2008 5:20 AM:I am shocked, totally shocked by all the calloused hateful comments against the county employees, many of whom have done good work for years for the public when a new requirement is imposed on them that was illegal since the beginning of our country and still believed to be harmful to society as a whole by a large portion of the public.

Paul wrote on Jun 21, 2008 5:22 AM:It is totally sickening to read so many hateful comments toward the county employees who believe certain actions which were illegal for hundreds of years are suddenly declared legal be a questionable 4-3 decision by the state supreme court. Compare this. Suppose you studied to be medical doctor so you could help people be healthier and live longer, and you worked for the county health department for years. Suppose a legislature and court said anyone who wanted "end it all" could go to any doctor and he/she had to perform the act or lose their job. Fair? I sure do not think so.

John wrote on Jun 21, 2008 5:49 AM:I wonder how many of these comments hateful toward the county employees were submitted by gays, and how many by the usual stable of persons who like to complain about almost everything except their own political position?

It is not legal wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:15 AM:To my knowledge it's still not legal for homosexuals to marry in CA or any state. It's not a law. Judges can't make laws. Only Congress can-"The President can propose laws, but only Congress can make a law. A member of either the House or Senate may introduce a bill and it must be approved by both. If similar but different bills are passed by the House and Senate, a conference committee will attempt to reconcile the differences and then both will vote on the same thing. Before it can be a law it must also be approved by the President or, if he does not sign the bill, the House and Senate can vote on it again and if they both pass it by a 2/3 majority it becomes law. If the law is challenged, the courts can rule that it is unconstitutional and then it is no longer a law.

To Solon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:19 AM:Great proof to rationalize your self-destructive lifestyle. So we are to behave as animals. That sums it up in a nut shell. If we are nothing more than animals, then you are right. We can live like animals. But if God is right then you are terribly wrong. For God says we are created in His image. We are a step higher than animals and should behave accordingly. The question is who is right? Is it man or God?

To Solon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:23 AM:You use evilution as reason for your behavior. Evilution is a theory. It is not proven scientific fact. Every bit of evidence that evilutionist have provided the past hundred and fifty years as been disproven. There is absolutely no evidence for evilution. Evilution is a fairy tale. If you want to base your life style on such nonsense, you are making a fatal mistake.

Three D wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:08 AM:To: I'm not gay... at 10:15 p.m.
The laws based on not killing, theft, lying, etc., are laws because they restrict harm one person can do to another, not because of the "basic commandments."
Rape is not one of the basic Ten Commandments. In fact, the same group who got the Ten Commandments, the Israelites wandering in the desert, received a commandment from God in Numbers 31 to rape the virgin girls of the Midianites after killing off all males and all non-virgin females.
And there are many other commandments that are not part of our laws.
We do not have laws mandating worship of the one true God, nor prohibiting the worship of engraved images (would that include little implements of the death penalty some people wear around their necks?), mandating obediance to the Sabbath, nor forbidding coveting. In fact, coveting - the desire to keep up with what the Joneses have - is the cornerstone of our marketing economy!
Bottom line: the commandments and our laws are separate, as they should be, and so should be the separation of church and state.
To: I am a man of science at 10:31 a.m.
Yes, Solon was rehashing info many of us already know. But sadly, he had to do it because someone challenged his earlier statement that had assumed more knowledge among the illiterati than what they really deserved. Sad, but you should direct your criticism to the blogger who asked him to provide examples. But then, "To Solon" comes along and accuses him of reducing us to the level of animals.
See how they are? First they say it isn't natural because animals don't do it, then when you prove they do, then we are the ones equating humans with animals?
Their circular reasoning boggles the mind.

Evangelical critic wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:23 AM:To all those christians against gay marriage: Jesus never said one word against gays. Those who cry out against gays in the name of the Bible are cherrypicking from Paul. Paul hated gays, but he also hated women. If you think that gays and women should both be second-class citizens, then at least you are not a hypocrite.

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:32 AM:Well, "Paul" at 5:22AM, "To Solon" at 7:23AM and all who seem to think that an employee can dictate to the employer what the employee will and will not do, I suggest that you go straight to your employer and tell that person (or persons) what you will and will not do for them and why. See how fast you are informed otherwise. One place I worked solved the problem of someone saying "That is not in my job description" by adding an item to all job descriptions except the lowest of jobs the phrase "And other duties as required". That meant that a Lead Electronics Technician might have to work in shipping or, if licensed, drive a truck like I did when I was a Lead Tech. IF someone feels that they cannot perform their job and refuses to do their job, no matter what their excuse (in this case marrying 2 adults of the same gender), they have 3 choices - seek a transfer, quit or be fired. They, as PUBLIC employees, do not have the luxury of deciding that they will do their job for some of the PUBLIC but not others of the PUBLIC. Some education as to who is the employer and who is the employee and what the role of each one is, is quite in order. Regards, Alf.

Why we Exclude Others wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:38 AM:MJ reveals the true prejudice at of county workers (religious beliefs merely tap into this) which is, the "visceral aversion" to same sex marriage. MJ is correct that the aversion exists, but incorrect that it is inevitable.

There have also been "visceral aversions" to the disabled, the overweight, the unattractive, mixed race couples, the socially awkward, "foreigners", and (for the high school set), those who dress funny, geeks and nerds.

Why did primitive man develop this ability to feel an aversion? To ensure that he/she would mate with those individuals most likely to be accepted into the tribe, and thus, be protected. Reproduction is, therefore, a topic for which these aversions are most active, thus, high school-age cliques and marriage law.

As children, we adopt our tribe's aversions, but we also learn which differences to accept. Tribal prejudices shift with the (mis)perceptions of who "out there" is the enemy.

Reason and self-awareness allows us to advance BEYOND our selfish, discriminatory thinking, BEYOND our learned hatred, to feel empathy for their situation and kindness toward those who are different from us. This humanity is what propels us beyond mean, angry tribalist