If they’re so christian, why don’t they round up the congregation and stone the adulterer to death. Yahweh commands it, so it must be obeyed after all.
2 Likes
“…or marrying each other without an officiant (which is how Quakers do weddings)…”
But this is only in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, correct? I mean, the only Quaker I know of is dead (Richard Nixon), so I’m thinking that the Friends may do it one way at their meetings but have to have it done with some sort of an official to make it legally binding?
Any Quakers on this thread like to comment? (Sorry that I used Nixon as the sole representative for your faith.)
1 Like
Heh, that just made me think “Sorry that I used John Wayne Gacy as the sole representative for clowns.”
3 Likes
After that kind of confusion, maybe they should try something a little simpler 
Please, no! Use Creative Commons so it’s not grabbed and taken private. And then, like @waetherman, I’ll use and mod it too and share any mods via CC terms.
Okay, yes, I know you’re kidding but AAL probably also enjoy opportunities for gratuitous precision. Many thx!
1 Like
According to Wikipedia, Quakers marry without an officiant but in PA, WI and CO licenses are available that only require the signatures of the spouses. Whether practicing Quakers all register their marriages I’m not sure. The history of their weddings and exemption from certain marriage rules in England is interesting, actually.
Similarly there is a whole movement among Evangelical Christians to renounce marriage licenses and marry without registering. They believe that any involvement of the state in a marriage is an afront to God. I expect this movement will be bolstered by the Obergefell ruling.
1 Like
So they get to revel in the joy that gay couples have had to deal with up to now?
- can’t file taxes jointly;
- inheritance rights;
- medical rights;
- parental rights;
- etc.
Sounds fair.
10 Likes
Well, I accept my own role in the confusion! Thanks for clarifying, though…
The last Quaker wedding I went to was in New Jersey, and there was no officiant for the ceremony. They did have a wedding license from the state, and signed it along with two witnesses, which does tend to be a pretty common requirement.
1 Like
Why can’t we have both? She can feel whatever she wants so long as she is fired, someone as bigoted as her should not be in a public position. Firing her should be non-optional. Also I agree fining the entire branch for not complying with the law would set a precedent that this is unacceptable.
Agreed.
yes it should!
1 Like
Pretty much. If they can’t stand equality, then I am fine with them unnecessarily paying extra taxes in protest. Maybe if enough of them do it, we can fill in some budget gaps.
2 Likes
My husband’s sister got married in Philly (1996) and her husband’s sister officiated (as a layperson) even though the Commonwealth doesn’t require an officiant. That’s the only reason why I knew about Pennsylvania’s law.
As for witnesses, I was only tangentially involved (we received an irate phone call at 10:00 a.m. on the day of said event and were told that we were late for photos, which was news to us since no one bothered to tell us…city of brotherly love, my ass), so I have no idea who the witnesses were or if they had them? Probably just asked two random guests.
And yes, they are now divorced.
1 Like
I’d just like to muddy up the waters a bit here. It may not be the public-facing employee who is being forced to enact - under fear of dismissal - a managerial tosspot’s idea of a non-service.
2 Likes
fair enough, you are right. an impartial investigation would be in order before any judgment.
In this instance we’re talking about elected office-holders, not their staff.
While the gentlemen in the video were repeatedly refused service by staff, staff made it clear that the decision not to serve them was made and for their part enforceable by the elected County Clerk, Kim Davis, the woman we’re talking about & the last person the gentlemen spoke to in the video.
In this matter there isn’t anyone above her. The people who are above her, other office-holders, have told her to do her job or resign. She yet refuses. She will eventually resign or be prosecuted out of office but these might not affect the benefits she’s currently entitled to.
She’s publicly stated that she will not resign specifically because she depends on her monetary compensation. She has publicly stated she will not do her job because she believes it is a sin.
So you see where I’m at?
3 Likes
Now I do.
However, “Go after the Institution, not the employees, it only enmartyrs them (and they might not be responsible anyway)” still stands as a generally preferable strategy.
If you can unambiguously identify a boss common-or-garden lawbreaker at work then go for them too. That’s only natural.
1 Like
I’d never call for employees in such a situation to be necessarily penalized.
Instead there should be protections for them in place so that they can refuse to be a part of it without losing their job. They actually can’t just go ahead and issue the license even if they want to, so they should be allowed to avoid refusing to do so, which harms the people they refuse. If they went ahead against the clerk’s orders, they are effectively issuing invalid licences, which doesn’t help.
Because the power of the office is vested in the office-holder, going after Kim Davis -is- going after the institution.
If some employee clerk refuses the order to issues licenses that will come from whoever replaces Kim Davis, that’s a personnel issue for the institution, and a civil rights issue only to the person(s) who that individual refuses to serve.
1 Like
At the risk of flogging a now long dead horse (my initial remarks pertained to small-c clerks, not capital C Clerks, which is all I saw in the video), I’d still say that it’s preferable to sanction the institution because it avoids martyrogenesis (your equivalencing of this particular institution with this particular individual human being notwithstanding).
But of course go after actual lawbreakers. That goes without saying. In cases where a lawbreaker isn’t part of an institution, it may be the only recourse.
1 Like
I cannot see how the licenses would be invalid if they were issued by the staff following the procedure and the law as they should have - they are surely backed by the law and it is the couple’s right, whatever the bigot says.
2 Likes
Sorry. The last lady, older, demanding no video/recording to satisfy an imaginary Miss Manners rule? That was the actual County Clerk. Right before the video cut. That’s who all the fuss is over. (Although her male deputy who initially addressed the two gentlemen certainly was vigorous about upholding her decision…)
Because the law specifies that the license must be issued by the Clerk. A deputy clerk issuing a license where the Clerk has ordered they may not isn’t operating under the purview of the institution/State any longer. It doesn’t matter if the institution/State is wrong and a bigot.
It’d be heart-warming youtube if some underling jumped up and said “I’ll do it!” sure but an insurance company or tax agency… they aren’t known for giving a damn. Things have to be legit to be legit which is why this Kim Davis person, who should never have been able to be such a problem bigot is exactly that.
1 Like
