San Diego seems to be tredding on tricky ground. If you can object on moral grounds to performing a legal marriage for two gay people, can you object to a legal marriage of say, a Muslim and a Christian? A 62-year old man and an 18-year old girl? A Downs Syndrome couple clearly expecting a child? Maybe clerks who object so strongly should be shifted to other jobs if their morals get in the way of doing their job.

go stephley. nicely put.

Wow, Stephley, I didn't think about it like that. That is a great point.

Love the one about the Clinton marriage. Every little girl must dream about a healthy loving marriage like that.

Technically I should have said: Every little child must dream about a healthy loving marriage like that.

How is letting people object on moral grounds any more slippery than allowing gay couples to join a union legally? With that, two men can share a house to cut expenses and get healthcare without really being a couple. There are doors for fraud that are opened because of this.

Dave, are you suggesting that straight men will marry each other, ala whatever that Adam Sandler movie was, because there's such an enormous savings? Has Massachusetts seen that happen? Do straight couples always marry for the right reasons? What about all those people who have been charged with bigamy?
Where gay marriage is legal, clerks should either conduct the wedding or be transferred to a position that does not involve marrying anyone. Your religious positions do not trump the couple's legal right to wed.

If there is an ecconomic advantage to be in a legal union, then yes there will be people who abuse that situation. I don't know if MA has seen that happen, but I don't know. No, straight couples don't always marry for all the right reasons, and I'm also against allowing that to happen. If Bigamy is against the law, those who are guilty of that should be punished according to the law. Where any marriage interfers with your religious convictions, you have every right to ask another clerk to take over, or refuse to do that. Religious freedom is one of the basic rights of this country.

IF bigamy is against the law?
How do you plan on monitoring whether people are marrying for valid reasons - and who will determine said reasons?
You are free to practice your religion, you are not free to refuse to allow others to equally enjoy their legal rights.

But bowing out and allowing another clerk to perform the ceremony is not refusing to allow others to equally enjoy their legal rights. They still get to get married. There are already so many government employees who don't do their jobs out of laziness or incompetence I don't see how this could cause problems logistically.

Here's another monkey wrench, via Hulberg V State of CA. This case involves two women who were together. They decide to break up. The problem is there are two children involved, and they are not Miss Hulberg's. Miss Hulberg petitioned the supreme court for custody over the biological mother, and was GRANTED said custody. The father of the children wasn't even allowed as an option. How wickedly wrong is that?

UnDave, we can spend weeks analyzing crazy divorce cases involving only straight people - its not relevant to clerks deciding to inflict their morals on other people.
Sarah - my point was, what if every clerk started to decide which marriages they morally approve? You're hired to do a job - if you can't do it, or don't want to, you should be fired or transferred.
And if a clerk can decide its against his or her morals to marry legal couples, tell me again why a soldier can't take a stand against a war that is questionably legal. If you let clerks violate the terms of their employment...

You're right. I was just amazed by the story this morning.

I don't think you will ever understand the difference because you don't want to understand the difference. It's not the job of a soldier to question the validity of a war/battle/skirmish that he has been ordered to fight in. He/she is expected to do his/her duty, because he/she swore an oath to do so.

I understand the story far better than you know. I'm just pointing that there's hypocrisy involved in determining where and when you'll allow people to exercize their own moral authority.

I guess I can understand what you see as hypocrisy, but I don't see it that way.