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"?
The bill provides for the "voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union." It does not specify whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.
But it also says marriage officers need not perform a ceremony between same-sex couples if doing so would conflict with his or her "conscience, religion and belief."
This is the perfect balance, imo. I can't understand why people have such a hard time with this.
It was like that in Canada when we went to get married; they gave us a list of people to call to perform the ceremony, and some would, some wouldn't. All those who wouldn't had uniformly polite, reasoned things to say about it, and wished us well in finding someone who would. (And we did, and he looked like Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption.)
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.
no subject
no subject
But it also says marriage officers need not perform a ceremony between same-sex couples if doing so would conflict with his or her "conscience, religion and belief."
This is the perfect balance, imo. I can't understand why people have such a hard time with this.
no subject
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