Iowa judge to stop perfoming marriages rather than comply with equality ruling

What a bunch of crap...

He should resign...

I wonder what would happen if a clerk or judge in a state that does not allow SSM refused to preform 1 man 1 woman marriages due to their personal beliefs that equal protection should cover everyone, or separation of church and state???  

...... Next time someone gives you a hard time for being LGBT... just ask them if they are unenlightened...or closeted

---

by: lisabrealty @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:47:38 AM CDT

ADF

Does anyone have any idea what ADF's win/loss stats are? I'd be curious to know how effective all those legal efforts have been in advancing their cause.

---

by: Stephanie @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:48:30 AM CDT

Very

They have their fingers into every equality pie: same sex co-parenting lawsuits; marriage recognition in NY; anti gay Day of (Un)Truth; finance disclosure laws in California post Poop 8.....just for starters...

The point is, their win/loss stats are not as significant as their 'interference' stats.

Also, isn't it against the law in Iowa to encourage someone to break the law?  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:18:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since when were laws optional?

Does everyone in Iowa get to pick and choose which laws they will obey?

"I'm sorry, your honor, but I have chosen not to recognize the auto theft statutes of Iowa anymore."

Right.

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:51:42 AM CDT

Damned good point

Guess what, Iowans?

According to this judge, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES ANY MORE!!

I wanna move there; sounds like a nice place. ;)

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:14:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like it.

You could prepare a pretty good defense for car theft, I think, from Acts of the Apostles in the bible.  "My religion doesn't believe in private ownership of property."

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 19:52:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some of them don't think it's a law...

...after all, the justices gave an opinion, and because the document was called an "opinion," it has no force of law. (Oh, and it's not printed in the lawbooks yet, so it doesn't count.) The head of the Health and Human Services department had to issue an order to the county recorders to follow the decision; people were contacting the recorders in an effort to find one who would refuse to follow the decision. Some of the local fundies have also been going to the gallery of the legislature wearing red (the Catholic colour of martyrdom).

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:21:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unreal

I wonder if the ADF would defend a similar racist act by insisting that the person committing it "should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs."

How many of these people really understand how poorly they'll be received by the historical POV? If they stepped into a time machine, walked out into 2020, and started spewing this garbage, they'd be chased out of town with pitchforks. Nuclear pitchforks, of course.

---

by: L Finger @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:57:08 AM CDT

As long as they stop performing all marriages, I dont have a problem

But no pick-and-choose on who you marry. If they're legal, and you're a state employee who's performing weddings, you don't get to choose.

---

by: joshjasper @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:31:52 AM CDT

seems to be 2 issues here

1.  No judge should be required to officiate at a wedding ceremony, any more than a preacher, priest, or rabbi should be required.  It is a discretionary act, and any authorized wedding officiant has liberty to marry a couple or not marry a couple.  No couple has a legal right anywhere to insist that a particular person officiate at their ceremony; they should all have an equal right to be legally married, but not to insist a particular person perform the ceremony.   So this judge's declaration that he'll stop doing all ceremonies just makes him look shallow and petty.  

2.  The ADF proposal isn't directed at judges or other officiants, because there is no case to be made there.  They aren't offering to defend people who are unwilling to perform the ceremony.  They are offering to defend county recorders who are required by law to issue the legal document (the marriage license itself), if a recorder chooses to refuse to obey the law and perform the tasks assigned to the county recorder.   Honestly, I can't imagine a court recorder (low level paper-pusher at the front counter, in most cases) making an issue over this, any more than I'd expect a person at the DMV choosing not to issue a driver license to someone appearing to be a Muslim.  If the applicants meet the legal requirements, the license is issued.  Front counter paper-pushers take orders, and rarely make waves ... at least in my opinion.

More ADF bluster.   bah!  

---

by: raytheist @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:45:27 AM CDT

There is a difference between clergy and public officials

The relationship is different. In most cases, clergy are considered self employed - even though most are employed by the hierarchy of the church. In some cases, the clergy are employed by the local church.

Public servants, on the other hand, are employed by the (little s) state: whether Federal, State, County, etc. And, at least in theory in the USA, the state is the people.

A clerk or judge who refuses a couple who is eligible for a marriage certificate is an employee who is refusing a valid request from his or her employer. That's insubordination.

Public servants don't have a choice to not serve people because they're black, or Baptist, or gay, or female, or disabled. Catholic clerks don't get to withhold marriage licenses from other Catholics who are planning a wedding outside the church.

Public servants serve the public. Those unwilling to serve the public are no longer public servants.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:13:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree...

Here is how I see it. If you are a judge who officiates at civil marriages in a courthouse, and draws a paycheck from taxpayers, you should not discriminate, period.

If your religious beliefs require that you discriminate against GLBT people when performing marriages, you should stop performing marriages as a public servant, and I don't want to hear about how you were forced out of the business by the mean GLBT people. That is your decision to leave the business.

And if you want to moonlight, take a side job in a church, that's your business. You can discriminate all you want.

---

by: JonathanU @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 08:43:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They take an oath of office

Swearing (to their own god, no less) that they will uphold the constitutions of the US and Iowa.  The court has ruled that the state's laws banning same sex marriage are not within the bounds of the Iowa Constitution, according to which document renders them void.

The county recorders do not have discretion, according to their own Attorney General, to vet the laws of the state.

So they have no choice.  Oh, well.

Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 08:58:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: County recorders

County recorders do not have the option to refrain from marriage duties. Recorders, by law, have no discretion about performing their legal duties, including the issuance or denial of marriage licenses. The Iowa attorney general has advised recorders that failure to issue the licenses could result in proceedings to remove the person from office. http://www.desmoinesregister.c...

---

by: Pollyanna @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:04:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who came up with the idea religious views mean squat in business/government?

 From Above:  "Government employees who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Doug Napier.  "This policy allows an employee who does not wish to violate his or her own conscience by issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple to abstain and allow the transaction to be performed by someone who is willing to do it.  Forcing them to participate in offensive acts contrary to their deeply held beliefs in order to remain employed is unconstitutional."

Real Life, people, means that if you don't like the views, you find a job somewhere else. I am an aerospace engineer, and if I am against war, and war machines, I don't work for an aerospace company that builds weapons.

Hey, maybe I should use the ADF thinking to stopping doing my job, and still get paid. I got religion, and am against war. Guess what employer, you can't force me to do something against my beliefs, and you can't fire me for not doing them. Sounds good to me!

Deanna

---

by: ab0ng @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:46:48 AM CDT

Calling all vegans

to work at Fundy-owned restaurants and refuse to serve animal products or even provide menus including animal products based on your values. Same for working at clothing stores that sell items with leather.

Calling all those who observe the Jewish and Muslim dietary codes to work at Fundy-owned restaurants and refuse to serve anything that isn't kosher or halal.

Calling all those whose religious views prohibit alcohol to work at Fundy-owned bars and liquor stores and refuse to sell anything with alcohol.

Calling Jehovah's Witnesses to work in emergency medicine and refuse transfusions to Fundies based on your religious beliefs.

Calling all those whose beliefs prohibit use of traditional medicine to work as physicians, nurses, paramedics, and pharmacists and refuse any medical care to Fundies, based on your beliefs.

Calling all Fundies to choose between doing their jobs and working elsewhere.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:58:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you have to recognize that

1. being a lawyer is not always about the law. Sometimes it is about creating a certain kind of publicity. Especially if you are in law for public policy reasons (whichever side).

2. offering free advice like ADF does here may be to collect more donations, create reputation, push your issues; not actually about winning particular cases.

3. creating a reputation for the "firm". Like look at Thomas More Law Center - how many cases have they actually won out of all they participated in? (don't know, but my guess not that many, if they actually represent people) However, they get their quotes when an event like this or firefighters on parade come up.

---

by: avocado @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:05:58 AM CDT

Hello, Governor Paterson?

He seems to be one of the FEW people in government who actually says - ALOUD - that CIVIL marriage is different than RELIGIOUS marriage.  

THAT WAS NOT A QUESTION.

A FACT.

HE SAYS IT.  He seems to be all alone out there.

Decades MORE of Psychological Abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:13:28 AM CDT

AT least Iowan policy is consistent

all or none, no discrimination.
That will pevent the ADF from getting much milage out of this....

---

by: CailleanMcM @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:16:18 AM CDT

Depends upon the job description, Caillean

If the judge's description says "can perform" then fine, opt out of all of the marriages.

If that descriptions says "will perform when requested" then no, this is not fine, this is a legal sit down strike authorised by the State AG and is a poor excuse for policy.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:25:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What about divorced couples?

Waiting for the first public servant denying to perform a hetero wedding for previously divorced individuals - by the book every catholic public servant should do so.  Didn't hear about that yet? I am getting sick of 'pick and choose' religious views... Separation of state and church - NOW!  

---

by: rupi3000 @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:44:47 AM CDT

Or deny a married het couple

a divorce, based on the judge's personal Christian views of marriage sanctions.


Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 08:32:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

An almost identical situation...

was the subject of a recent employment tribunal and later appeal in the UK. Lillian Ladele, a Nigerian-British Registrar (official who officiates at civil weddings and civil partnerships) working for Islington Council, refused to perform CPs because she viewed them as marriage and therefore against her religious beliefs. (Incidentally the definition she gave at the original hearing would also ban remarriage of divorcees, something she was perfectly happy doing; ironically this outted her real motivations as simple bigotry and so it lost her the support of many LGBTs who might otherwise have defended her right to freedom of belief.)

Ladele won at the original hearing, however this was overturned on appeal by Islington on the basis that she had an obligation to her employers to fulfill the duties they were legally obliged to do, and which an employer might not be able to fulfil if too many of their staff held the same objection. In other words the rights of the customer or client and/or the legal obligations of the employer override the rights of the employee.

Ladele has since been denied the right to appeal the overturn of the original decision.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 08:10:06 AM CDT

My first inclination

was that fine, if this judge isn't performing any marriages than good, he's being consistant.

However, the more I thought about it...this person's a judge, what respect does he/she have for the law?  If they don't agree with the Supreme Court decision then how can Iowans expect this judge to rule fairly and unbiased?

---

by: BB @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 08:55:51 AM CDT

This is a publicity stunt,

  These judges are using the system to promote their religious belief.  They stopped doing all ceremonies.  Trying to get the public pissed off now that same sex couples can get married, the judges chose not to do their job.  Next up will be some het couple that wants a certain judge to do their wedding ceremony and gets their feathers ruffled, and makes a stink.

 The ADF is adding fuel to this small fire to jump on the band wagon.

 The wingnuts have lost big time in Iowa.  The legislature stood stong and said no constitutional amendment.  The outrage died quickly because the outrage was ginned up.  You don't see anymore calling for a constitutional convention or much less of anything else.

 All these dumb ass judges did was get their name placed on a watch list. There will be someone watching to see if he or she does one straight wedding ceremony and then refuses to do one same sex ceremony and his career is over.

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 09:05:06 AM CDT

I work in an ice arena.

I can't suddenly decide that it violates my religious beliefs to have women's knees, collarbones, and elbows be seen in public and refuse to work the sound system for women's and pairs figure skating events, and only work it for men's events and hockey games where everyone is covered. My employer would tell me to take a hike and find another job, because, um, working the sound system IS the job. It's not the totality of my duties, but it's a requirement of getting that paycheck. I can't just decide to skip it. If I'm unwilling to do the same job for all comers, I need to do other work. Or work at the Ner Tamid Arena or something, where the women skate in long skirts and long sleeves and headscarves and the men would never think of using their fedora as a prop.  

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:09:53 AM CDT

If any Judge decides to stop performing their duties,

marriages in this case, due to change in the laws that now create a conflict with their personal beliefs, be they moral, religious or any other type of belief, they should be allowed to do so.  At that same time they should also resign immediately because to continue on the bench they would be blatantly violating their oath of office and to publicly announce such a contempt for the law only raises the question of how many other laws they secretly allowed their personal beliefs to affect in rendering decisions in their courtrooms and therefore the lives of the people at their mercy.

---

by: The Woodrow @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:23:28 AM CDT

Exactly,

  How many cases has the judge let his personal religious beliefs affect rulings in the court room.  I I were a defendant in this judges court, I could claim he ruled against me because I didn't believe the same way he did.  Reasonable doubt is all that is required.  And if these judges make this a known fact that they will not perform their duties because of a religious belief, they show just cause they cannot do the rest of their job.

 They need to resign or be impeached.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:24:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, please, go Galt

The fundies keep giving us examples of just how vile they are. They expect everyone around them to bow to their whims, and then cry and whine about how oppressed they are when they're expected to do their jobs according to the law like anyone else. Free speech somehow = only THEY can say what they like, equal civil rights = they are being oppressed by having to follow the law, religious freedom somehow = only THEY can say which religions are free and which aren't. I really wish they'd hurry up and go Galt like they keep shrieking about.

I'm tempted to become a nurse just so I can work in an IFV clinic and refuse service to fundie christian women on the grounds that I'm part of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and what they're doing is a tragic sin according to my moral conscience. Any bets on how long I'd have my job?

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:30:39 AM CDT

Conscience

It always fascinates me that these right-wing KKKristians only seem to have consciences when it comes to LGBT issues or a woman's right to choose.  When it comes to our government torturing, or launching wars in Asia that kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians (at a conservative estimate), or executing prisoners even after new evidence has cast doubt on their guilt, these people's consciences are on hold.  Some morality.

One of the few positive things Obama has done is to strike down the rule permitting "freedom of conscience" to health care workers.  Why would anyone else assume s/he might get away with that same argument in another context?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:58:27 AM CDT

Ugh, and now Repug govenortorial hopeful Vander Plaats says

Iowa AG Miller doesn't have the authority to compel county clerks to marry ss couples.

In keeping with Repug tradition, you can say anything you want if it's for your "values".

Republican gubernatorial prospect Bob Vander Plaats today said Attorney General Tom Miller lacked the authority to compel county recorders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Vander Plaats of Sioux City said Miller is an officer of the state judiciary, not the executive branch, and therefore has no standing to insist that recorders issue the licenses.

Read the rest in the Des Moines Register.
http://www.desmoinesregister.c...

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:29:44 AM CDT

Vander Plaats has also

said the Governor could sign an executive order putting the court decision on hold.

A state senator has complained that the Attorney General is selectively enforcing laws by threatening county clerks that don't issue licenses, while not taking action against a county attorney who has said he is reluctant to enforce smoking laws.  He has also sent letters to county clerks encouraging them to not issue licenses.  Another senator is preparing an ethics complaint for him disrespecting the law.

If that isn't an example of my poor writing ability I don't know what it would take.

---

by: Charles @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 10:18:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ally and Witness this morning

This morning I (and 15 others) were there when the first marriage license in Marion County (Knoxville) Iowa was issued. It was great! The recorder was helpful and nice - there were looks and glances from the others in the offices but everything went just fine and the guys now have their license to marry! So, there are some counties and courthouses that will be fine. The others will have to be reminded that it is their job. This will happen.

---

by: cyndikdb @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:46:13 AM CDT

Yesterdays CR Gazette

Had an article about a couple from Missouri chartering a tour bus to bring 13 pairs of friends to Iowa City on Friday.  It isn't clear how many are prepared to tie the knot, the article just says about a dozen.

---

by: Charles @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 10:27:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now THAT's what I'd call "judicial activism"

---

by: Pollyanna @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:54:16 AM CDT

re:

that's my favorite comment thus far.

---

by: reptile @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 14:45:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Solution is Simple

If you cannot perform the duties your job requires, find a new job or be fired.

---

by: johnson @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:55:26 AM CDT

ridiculous

So, if I work in a liquor store, but I'm a teetotaler, can I not sell alcohol to people, either?  
If it's part of your job, suck it up and do it.  Otherwise, go find a new job.  

---

by: Jessica_L @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:25:50 PM CDT

This level of accomodation has got to stop

It's called professionalism.  It's what you have to do when you get paid to do your JOB.  Religious accommodation only applies if it reasonably does not impact on their duties.  We have to stop letting people get away with this. Because despite all the talk of personal belief, its really about disrespecting LGBT people and denying service.

---

by: lovlet @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:45:38 PM CDT

Stand up and wear the BIGOT label proudly.

  I don't want to hear these turds saying they are not Bigots, they are just following their religious belief.  You are still a BIGOT.

 Many people said it was their religious belief that blacks had to be separated from whites, and guess what, they are Bigots too.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 18:27:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What about working on the sabath?

I need to check the laws, but it seems to me that somewhere employers do not have to make accomodations in work assignments based upon religous exemption, other wise there would be a lot of jewish police officers, firemen, nurses, and others who would be allowed to claim the right to not work on the sabath. Similarly there would a lot of catholics not working on a Sunday?

Employers have the right to assign work to employees, without regard to religious beliefs.  

It is so very interesting how the argument over granting "special rights" to a group of people doesn't hold true when you're the "special" one????

Just another hypocritical, under thunk, half baked argument based upon a best seller fiction.  

---

by: goddesspdx @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 19:36:00 PM CDT

Special rights anyone?

What the ADF is doing is what the wingnuts have been trying to do all along.  They want to claim a special right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.  This is the same special treatment they try to claim when they argue against hate crime law or nondiscrimination law by claiming it would hinder their rights.

They are making the leap from having the freedom to believe over to having the freedom to act on that belief, a special right if there ever was one.  The United States allows people to believe anything they want but they are not always allowed to act on those beliefs.  That's what hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws do, prevent people (or at least make them think twice and giving their victims lawful recourse) from acting on hateful beliefs that trample on other people's rights.

The whole right wing would love to get just one precedent where their beliefs were allowed to excuse their prejudice and discrimination, that's why they are constantly asking for, demanding and pretending to have this special right.  We need to make sure they never get one.

---

by: Emelye Waldherr @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 14:12:11 PM CDT