By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bouzane on 04 September 2015
Edit Thread
binary solo said:
bouzane said:
binary solo said:
She shouldn't have been gaoled, she should have been given a verbal warning, then a written warning saying that she will be terminated unless she issues the licenses, and then been fired if she did not obey.

It's in the constitution, you cannot establish religion. And that means you can't apply your religious beliefs to the lawful engagement with agencies of the local state and federal govt.

Loving the hypocrisy again coming out of the Republican candidates. They wrap themselves in the constitution any chance they get, but they are quick to ignore the constitution when it impinges on their desire to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. Oh well, just another day in politics I suppose.


She did get a written warning in the form of a court order. You act as if she wasn't given ample opportunity to change her ways but that certainly isn't the case. Also, she was an elected official who couldn't simply be fired.

It probably would be simple, possibly more simple than firing a country/state/federal employee. If you refuse to carry out your elected duty then you are no longer serving according to the terms under which you were elected and can therefore be removed from office. It would be a different process than the normal firing of hired employees, but it would be no less difficult to act upon.

The problem with gaol is it makes her into a rallying point for the homophobes. Ultimately, the will of the supreme court and the power of the constitution will win out, which means same sex couples will get the marriage licences they want from the county office.

Marriage licences should be federally issued anyway (a marriage is transferrable inter-state, which should make it a federal thing), which means a federal employee should be issuing the licences, not a locally elected official.


I guess I stand corrected. Although firing the clerk to save her from being found in contempt of court would be special treatment which she doesn't deserve.

Who cares if this is a rallying point for homophobes? I think it's great because the opposition has virtually no merit due to legal precedent and, thanks to the Clerks character (or lack thereof), virtually no ground to stand on from a religious perspective either. This woman is a hypocrite who ignores religious and secular law when it isn't convinient and that makes it impossible to defend her. It makes defending her actions impossible as well. Let people flock to support her so they can be identified and confronted with reason.

I'm not a fan of expanding the duties and powers of the central government in most cases but... I see little reason why they shouldn't be handling marriage so I must agree.