Twenty years ago, did you ever think that the Commonwealth of Virginia would be behind South Africa in anything that could be described in a sentence including the words "equal rights"?
Unless I'm very much mistaken, marriage officers now need not perform any ceremony if doing so would conflict with their (memo to the AP: 'officers' is plural, so there's no need for 'his or her', thanks) religion and beliefs, etc.
I suppose it's possible I'm a little bit mistaken. Maybe a clergyman can refuse to marry any couple he chooses, but a judge or mayor or whatever (I imagine it varies by jurisdiction) has to marry anyone who appears before him with a license.
I do agree that such an escape clause is a good balance, but I can't help feeling it's not unlike allowing a pharmacist not to fill a prescription.
See, I figure a minister had BETTER be able to refuse to marry whoever...but a judge? that's a little more sketch. OTOH, unlike getting a drug from a pharmacist, with marriage there's usually a little more ability to plan ahead and say "hmm, this guy is busy, that guy wont' do it, how about next Thursday with the third one?" And yet.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I suppose it's possible I'm a little bit mistaken. Maybe a clergyman can refuse to marry any couple he chooses, but a judge or mayor or whatever (I imagine it varies by jurisdiction) has to marry anyone who appears before him with a license.
I do agree that such an escape clause is a good balance, but I can't help feeling it's not unlike allowing a pharmacist not to fill a prescription.
no subject