The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Civil Partnerships and religion...
oddment
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I came across this story the other day, in which a regisrtrar has refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies between homosexual couples as it goes against her religion. I also read a discussion thread on the website of Britains best selling newspaper The Sun, about the subject.
Now, she may not be allowed to object to performing these duties if she wants to keep her job (that issue is stil unresolved), but in my own mind at least, I don't see where religion comes into a legal service such as a civil partnership. It is not a marriage in the religious sense, as it cannot contain anything religious or be performed in a place of worship. All it is, is a legal binding of two people, giving them the same legal rights as a heterosexual married couple.
So, the discussion, amongst other issues which I'm sure will crop up here, is this: should she be allowed to object to performing civil partnership ceremonies and still keep her job?
Now, she may not be allowed to object to performing these duties if she wants to keep her job (that issue is stil unresolved), but in my own mind at least, I don't see where religion comes into a legal service such as a civil partnership. It is not a marriage in the religious sense, as it cannot contain anything religious or be performed in a place of worship. All it is, is a legal binding of two people, giving them the same legal rights as a heterosexual married couple.
So, the discussion, amongst other issues which I'm sure will crop up here, is this: should she be allowed to object to performing civil partnership ceremonies and still keep her job?
PSN Sig Hidden Within!*
*Thanks Thanatos!
*Thanks Thanatos!
oddment on
0
Posts
It's the same as if someone went to work as a butcher, and then refused to do his/her job based on her religion stating that they aren't allowed to touch blood or some such thing. Should that person be allowed to stay, considering that they aren't doing their job?
On the other hand, as a government employee, she is a public servant and a representative of her employers. So in the real world, it looks like she could be stuck choosing between her morals and her job if this is now a part of her job description.
No-one rights are being violated, but she is refusing to do something she is paid to do, which shouldn't be allowed. No-one else in any other job would get away with it, and I think everyone would be in uproar if she was refusing to marry inter-faith ot inter-racial couples.
The thing is, this has nothing to do with her religion in the slightest. It is all a legal thing, so why should religion come into play, or be ALLOWED to come into play in this? If it were a gay couple wanting to get married in her church, then she'd have every right to refuse, but they are legally entitled to a civil partnership, and as someone who is paid to uphold the law she should do her job or leave it.
*Thanks Thanatos!
If you have some sort of internal belief, that's fine. But if it prevents you from doing that job, there's no difference between you and someone who physically cannot do said job.
They provide the same legal standing as a marriage, but without the religious aspect. So while it may be 'circumventing' the ban on gay religious marriage as it were, it is still not technically a marriage. I'm not bothered about this aspect much as I'm not religious myself, and it would just be the legal aspects that I'd be interested in if I were to want to 'marry' my partner.
*Thanks Thanatos!
And really, you can't say it's religious persecution if you're firing someone because they say their religion prevents them from doing their duty.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
As for her job, reading further into it I actually kind of understand this, since it says she's had her current job before civil partnerships actually came into existence. Basically, she was probably fine with her job, then they added something she considered immoral and sinful onto her workload. I don't really agree with her point of view, but I understand the concern.
It seems like the proper course of action would be to quit. If my job suddenly called for boiling kittens, I'd either quit, or get fired for telling them the fuck off.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.
I can understand it to a point, but then she is in a job to uphold the law, and laws change. She must have known this going into the job, even though it didn't exist back then. Plus, the Civil Partnership Act has been in effect for well over 2 years now... so why is she only just objecting to this?
*Thanks Thanatos!
That's only analogous if: A) boiling kittens is not illegal where you live, and
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well, you can substitute boiling kittens with whatever activity you find morally abhorrant. Lets say animal testing, that can get pretty nasty. It's a bit more of a gray zone, but still at least somewhat understandable.
As far as whether your belief is "religious" or not, I don't think really matters. It's my belief that boiling kittens is not very nice, I don't think you need to attach a whole worldview to it to be relevant. The fact that she's against gay marriage because her pastor/preacher/old book told her so isn't as important as the fact that she's against it.
Leviticus doesn't count.
I'm pretty sure it only appears in Leviticus, but I could be wrong.
Why doesn't it could though? I'm pretty sure that part of the whole Jesus thing that was he wasn't trying to get rid of the OT, rather update it.
And I don't remember Jesus ever mentioning anything along the lines of "homos shall not be wed in the eyes of the Lord," in his speeches.
Because nobody pays attention to anything in Leviticus apart from 20:13.
Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that.
As for the J man, I figured it was more "If he didn't directly contradict something in the OT, then the OT ruling stands." Of course, that brings its own problems, but I don't think I'm qualified to sort out the various interpretations of an ancient, massive religion (in terms of numbers and sects).
If someone disrespects their parents, execute them. If someone commits adultery, execute them.
I know all about this, and what a clusterfuck it is. I figure that if they're gonna believe in a bunch of made up stuff, to the point of hating a specific group of people with a blind rage, then cherry picking what they like and don't like out of their holy book isn't their greatest sin.
It doesn't matter to them that Leviticus says a lot of fucked up stuff. There's a (probably mistranslated) line that justifies their feelings to themselves. Do you think they're gonna stop and read the rest and take it all to heart/throw out the whole thing because of what else is there?
Edit: you know, I should probably excuse myself from this, as I fear I'll help drive it to yet another lolreligion thread.
I don't understand people who still object to civil partnerships when there is nothing religious about them at all. It then becomes less about protecting the sanctity of you religion and more about denying rights as dictated by the law because of your religion. Religion should have no place in law making or generally running the country. People can believe what they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
*Thanks Thanatos!
The most obvious answer I believe to myself comes directly from my education in human psychology: homosexual behavior violates their heteronormative perceived gender and sexual schemas, and thus is anathema to them. It's the same reason a lot of people hate furries; "because it's wrong."
Note that I'm not defending furries in any manner. Fuck those freaks.
My grandma was always big on religion. Of course, she wasn't one to go around talking about it all the time, so she never struck me as a deeply zealous person. I've always perceived her as an Evangelical, but I was never able to figure out why she was so tolerant of behaviors and lifestyles that weren't in the mainstream consciousness and sphere of acceptance during her time growing up. I asked her about this one day, going so far as to quote some passages from Leviticus about it. She replied with "Leviticus says a lot of things, and most of them didn't even make sense back then. What makes you think they make more sense now?"
I feel the need to point that that furries don't have sexual relationships differently than straight and/or heterosexual couples. Except the few that have sex in costumes. That's just nasty.
And the conventions, sweet merciful Christ.
But back to the subject at hand; It's amusing to know that there are older Christians, evangelicals especially, who are smart enough to sift through the older stuff and understand that it shouldn't all be taken seriously. So much of it very clearly was not meant to be used as the standards for today. Honestly; Eating meat on the wrong day? Wearing clothes made from two kinds of cloth? What the fuck is that even supposed to protect against?
There's a big difference between furry and just anthropomorphic. Donald Duck is anthropomorphic. To be furry, you need to have that creepy "I'm really a fox, and this is my inner self" vibe. Not necessarily a sexual thing.
Old people, on the whole, are pretty sensible.