Reader comments · Maryland: Several anti-gay court clerks to stop performing all marriages · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Maryland: Several anti-gay court clerks to stop performing all marriages

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ok so, if you don’t like part of your job you can get away with not doing it by saying it is against the tenets of the lifestyle you choose to live?

    Cool, it’s against my lifestyle to treat heterosexuals as people!!

  2. Two thoughts come to mind…

    Will they continue to be paid for choosing not to do their jobs?

    Would the same stance apply if they were choosing to refuse to marry, say, black people, Christians or Jews?

    1. they DON’T get to choose who they will marry or not.
      They are being stopped from performing ANY marriages at all, gay or straight.

      In other words: they are being demoted or moved to other departments for not fulfilling the requirements of their position.

  3. So! if a key job descriptor is “Perform Marriages” and you refuse… your first option is to resign! your second option is wait for your employer to “warn you!” of being guilty of “Insubordination” and grounds for dismissal.

    If and only “if” the job description says “Perform Marriages between a man and a woman” would an employer have some obligation to renegotiate… other wise keep a pile of prepared pink slips on his/her desk prepared for each employee who utters the words “refuse”

    1. It’s still an automatic assumption for a lot of people that when you say “marriage”, it is meant for a heterosexual couple. That attitude IS changing, but we still have to deal with the “dinosaurs” who don’t want to see past their own narrow definitions of what “should” be.

  4. Sounds ok to me. What else are they going to do to justify their salaries? This “privilege” will cause mayhem among court employees and no more homophobic refuseniks will be employed. Perfect.
    It’s so obvious now that our greatest enemies are people of faith. They have all outed themselves as bigots. They will lose just as they lost the battle for racial segregation.

    1. “It’s so obvious now that our greatest enemies are people of faith”.

      I for one feel that I don’t wish to step foot inside a church EVER again, but there’s the dilemma of having to when invited to a wedding. I’d go because I am expected to or because I want to, yet can you imagine the disgust if I said, “sorry, I can’t attend because the host of your wedding is against my sexuality”? My partner and I had close relations refuse to attend our civil partnership because it was “against” their religion, yet we had to respectfully accept that otherwise a family war would have erupted and it would have been us that would be labelled the ‘baddies’!

      The whole thing makes me sick. When public employees refuse to serve gay people equally they should be sacked. End of.

      1. Just don’t go to any weddings in churches that are against gay marriage, it makes perfect sense. Politely turn down the invite and explain why, it will at least make them think.

        If the relative cared about your feelings they wouldn’t get married there anyway.

      2. Skip the wedding and go to the reception afterwards.

  5. “Ms Williams says it’s a way of respecting their beliefs.”

    Why is there such a desire by Governments/Government officials to bow down to nasty bigots? Why can’t they just tell these neanderthals to go and get f****d. It just seems that religion runs the world, not Governments. Religions tell them to jump and Governments ask “how high”?!

    Having ‘faith’ appears to be the way for bigoted, right-wing morons to do and say whatever, whilst anyone else has to step into line with their wishes….*scream*.

  6. So if they resign sometime in the future and seek employment as registrars elsewhere, and are then asked by their new potential employer, ‘What do you think about performing a same-sex marriage?’
    And they then say, ‘Well, I wouldn’t do it, would I?’
    Potential employer’s answer, ‘Bye. Next!’

  7. Maryland has homework to do regardless! check out the following link! Notice the “all inclusive” artwork in the logo.

    Then read the inappropriate “check” boxes for the applicant to complete

    Looks like you would have a problem filling in the form, let alone get a license for 02 January 2013

    1. Yes, offering to specify the ethnicity and gender of the officiant does raise a few eyebrows !

      However, appears to be a purely commercial referral site, not an official one operated by or affiliated to the state of Maryland.

      It’s registered to an individual in New York city.

  8. I imagine there are plenty law abiding people looking for work in Maryland.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Dec 2012, 7:20pm

    I’m sorry but if you work for and are paid by the state to do a state government job which is what clerks do, refusing to do any part of thatr job should be subject to dismissal, same as any other employee who doesn’t pull his or her weight. Try doing that in the private sector, you’d be shown the door. Religion has NO place in employment. Let them go work for a church and practice their bigotry there, the correct place for it. I’m sick and tired of government kow-towing to bloody religious nutters and imposing their will on the rest of society. This really is a step too far in my view.

    I think secular employers on both sides of the pond should be allowed to amend employment contracts or handbooks to reflect that there will be no accommodation for the exercise of religious beliefs in the performance of one’s job. The same should apply to politicians. Get religion out of the workplace and out of government altogether.

  10. David Cary Hart 28 Dec 2012, 2:26am

    I am a member of the Christian Identity Church. I don’t want to marry any Jews or Blacks. Do I get an out?

    This is PREPOSTEROUS! Government sanctioned and enabled discrimination. If they cannot carry out their duties they should resign – promptly.

  11. benpinwang 28 Dec 2012, 8:29am

    I was teaching so called “mentally challenged” students near 30 years ago, and all those who had problems handling those kids were either not hired or let go. Where is the moral courage to fire those under-qualified people now? Fire them please. Let them sue and lose, knowing there is a qualification to be meet, and you can’t use your belief as an excuse, you have to proof what you believe is true first.

  12. Ultimately, these people are not employed to carry out religious ceremonies so how they cite religious reasons is beyond me.

    This is the same as Lillian Ladelle in Islington. Employed by the state to carry out civil work.

  13. Keith Francis Farrell 28 Dec 2012, 10:12am

    Well if they are not prepared to do the job they were employed to do, then it is well andgood to take them off that part of their job that they can no longer do, same as a disabled person. give them work they can do, like cleaning the loo and floors, and also pay them the correct wage for thetype of work they are prepared to do

  14. Robert White 28 Dec 2012, 1:48pm

    Fire people who refuse to do their jobs.

    Clerk doesn’t want to acknowledge the gay?

    Pharmacist doens’t “beleive in” birth control?

    That’s a curbing for both. Problem solved.

    Same for an “athiest” who doesn’t want to service religious people.

    Same for (guy) who doesn’t want to service (guy of other race).

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.