I think they should be gassed for not doing their job, if they refuse to give the licenses.

So the Republican plan is to use this issue again? Lets see the economy,the environment,the war,....I guess this is all they got. Pathetic. Goodwin is turning over in his grave.

Not a great comparison. I understand that they are encouraging people to not comply with unjust and tyrranical laws, but the easier thing is to quit. If my job asked me to do something I believed to be immoral, I would move on. However, if the scope of the job changed, and you have a contract, you could have an argument that you don't have to do it.

But refusing to marry two people and refusing to kill two people are vastly different topics.

Thanks for the link, but I'd never click on that site. How can people like this get so worked up over issues that have no real affect on them personally?  Do you get the impression that people who support and post this type of garbage just want everybody to be just like them and will resort to any tactic to try and make it so?

I just shake my head, I don't understand how fellow citizens can so easy work to deny someone basic civil rights.

There is right and wrong and sometimes courageous people have to take risk to witness for what is right.  That courageous person could be a pharmacist who refuses to sell the morning after pill or a nurse that refuses to assist in abortion, both of which are murder.  Or how about the correctional officer who refuses to assist in administering the death penalty.  So we can take the example of those people who assisted the Jews at risk of there jobs and very lives just because the society at that time judged it moral and legal to kill the Jew's.  And what if those people in Nazi Germany simply quit there jobs ,instead of using there position to help the Jews?  Where would the right be in that.  We can also take the example of those Americans who risked everything against the British, institutionalized slavery, women's rights, and civil rights.  Good does not come by being  a complacent follower, it takes hard work and risk. 

I worked with a woman who lived there as a small child at the time~ she told me the simple answer to that~they would be dead.

The two are incomparable,apples and oranges.Anybody who believes this is "morally wrong" should just quit their job~ or wait to be fired. 

Wayfare your so right it does take hard work and risk and good people to promote and secure the freedom for all people and their civil rights! CA has always been a state which worked actively to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Here is the link to massequality.org: http://www.massequality.org...

what a difference comparing to two sides.

Also...here is a good read...sorry for the cute and paste:

By Elizabeth Mehren for LA Times - Published May 17, 2008

As California prepares to permit gay and lesbian marriage following Thursdays ruling by the state Supreme Court, Massachusetts views itself as a largely positive case study. In fact, at least one outspoken adversary in the Massachusetts Legislature has completely changed his views.

BOSTONFor some, it is as simple as access to the vocabulary of marriage. My wife translates so much more readily to the general populace than my partner, said Marcia Hams, who traded vows with Susan Shepherd days after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage on May 17, 2004.

Other same-sex couples say marriage has produced more practical benefits. Gay and lesbian spouses can authorize emergency medical treatment for each other that once was off-limits because they were not husbands or wives. They can inherit property without mountains of paperwork explaining their relationshipdocuments that often still were subject to challenge by biological relatives. And, as legally recognized families, they have access to cheaper health insurance. Its a huge savings for us, about $4,000 a year, Gary Chalmers said. After he and Rich Linnell married four years agothe very day that such unions became legal in Massachusettsthey were able to scrap Linnells $340-a-month individual policy and join a family plan. The couple have diverted the savings to a college fund for their 16-year-old daughter, Paige, who wore her first pair of high heels to her fathers candlelight church wedding.

As California prepares to permit gay and lesbian marriage following Thursdays ruling by the state Supreme Court, Massachusetts views itself as a largely positive case study. In fact, at least one outspoken adversary in the Massachusetts Legislature has completely changed his views.

I was a huge opponent, said Rep. Paul Kujawski, a Democrat who voted repeatedly in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. After three years of conversations with gay and lesbian families and individuals, Kujawski said, he has become a supporter: I listened to story after story, and I found out they only want what everyone else wantsthe opportunity to live in happiness and dignity.

Opposition persists among groups that champion the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. But for the most part in Massachusetts, lesbian and gay marriage has become so everyday that when kindergartner Chloe Page saw her teacher sporting a new wedding band, she asked if he had married a boy or a girl.

Chloes mother, Boston-area events planner Liz Page, said Friday that the California decision meant Massachusetts could finally relinquish its status as the sole state to allow gay and lesbian marriage. This is so important, Page said. We have been waiting for the other dominoes to start to fall.

But Kris Mineau, president of the nonprofit Massachusetts Family Institute, said Friday that the California court decision represented another assault on a treasured institution. What has happened here in Massachusetts is that marriage has been denigrated. It has been cheapened, Mineau said. The California ruling has just exacerbated the notion that marriage is no longer held in high esteem.

According to recent state data, more than 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have married in the four years since the Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in Massachusetts to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, regardless of gender.

Fears that Massachusetts would become a same-sex marriage mecca for the rest of the country were quelled when then-Gov. Mitt Romneya Republican and a foe of gay and lesbian marriageunearthed a 1913 statute barring marriage in the commonwealth if a couples home state did not recognize the union.

City and town clerks at that point were barred from issuing licenses to same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts, and there are no firm figures on how many such marriages have taken place.

Same-sex divorces also are hard to track because counties record those actions only by the last names of the parties involved. Carisa Cunningham, spokeswoman for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders here, said gay and lesbian divorces in Massachusetts probably numbered in the several dozens.

(GLAD represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that prompted the Massachusetts court decision permitting same-sex marriage, and it also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in conjunction with Thursdays California decision.)

In a way, Massachusetts has been like the reality TV show for gay marriage, said Karen Kahn, co-author of Courting Equality, a book examining same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

When we were the only state, we were the ones who were out there. We were the target for every kind of criticism, all the threats that this would destroy marriage, families and civilization.

Instead, Kahn said, what we have had is four years of marriage equality. Nothing terrible has happened in our state. The Red Sox have won the World Series twice since the law changed. There continue to be little pockets of opposition, but almost none of it is not religious-based. Overall, we are doing just fine here in Massachusetts.

Kahn, 52, married her co-author and longtime companion, Patricia Gozemba, 67, in September 2005.

Before facing the general electorate, constitutional amendments in Massachusetts must be approved by two successive special meetings of the state Legislature known as constitutional conventions. Last June, lawmakers voted 151 to 45 against a measure that would have placed an amendment barring same-sex marriage on the state ballot. That action essentially tabled any ban until 2012.

As he arrived in Baltimore on Friday for a hockey tournament, Peter Hams said he had a personal reason to celebrate Thursdays California court decision.

Growing up as the son of two unmarried moms, Hams, 28, said he always had to watch what he said about his family, even among his closest friends in open-minded Cambridge.

Now that Marcia Hams and Susan Shepherd are marriedthey waited in line for hours with Peter to become the first same-sex couple in the commonwealth to obtain a marriage licensehe said: For me it is a huge weight off my shoulders. I dont have to explain anything to the people I meet. I can just say my parents are married. This is the kind of privilege that most heterosexual families take for granted.

Wayfarer, I find it funny you mention women's rights and civil rights after your comment about the pharmacist and the nurse, which would deny women and men of their rights under law.  I am also very tired of Nazi Germany being brought up in every discussion, when the world repudiated every thing that government stood for, including their twisted legal system with the Nuremberg Trials. Your very argument suggests that the US today is the equivalent of Nazi Germany, which is light years from the truth. You have no rational argument for your positions. You select straw examples without any logical basis for their presentation.  Your posts are a testament of narrow mindedness and intolerance. While so many on these blogs look for progress and growing cooperation among the community, you continue to castigate human beings for daring to forgive and embrace diversity of culture.

So Boston doesn't civil rights mean the right to believe and practice your belief.  I can not make your choices for you ,but I must make my own and mine says "to render unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God."  So trying to force me to act against my belief is trampling all over my civil rights.  Forcing me to quit my job and lively hood does the same.  How long will it be before they pass a law saying that clergy must perform these ceremonies and how many more martyrs will that create? 

Adam I didn't start the Nazi example ,but I used it to point out that even when the majority of a society says something is O.K. it doesn't make it so, as you yourself pointed out using the example of the Nuremberg Trials.  Furthermore abortion is a crime against the rights of both women and men.  I can say the same of your last comment being a testament of intolerance and narrow mindedness, because you are branding me that simply ,because we disagree.  Isn't there the old saying of the pot calling the kettle black?  Doesn't embracing diversity of culture mean embracing of traditional culture too? 

"to render unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God."  so true but if your a civil servant you can not decided on who you will or will not provide services too. That is like a fireman saying he is against gays due to his religion and not putting the fire out on a home own by a gay or gay couple.

I would support a bill that would protect churches and minister from preforming any religious marriage ceremony they do not approve of.

In the Roman Empire when it was illegal to be Christian a lot of civil servants and even members of the Emperors house hold were tortured to death for not burning a pinch of incense to the state Deity of the Emperor as was the law.   

Oblio and the pointless forest.... 

Wayfarer, don't confuse Christian law with U.S. law. Abortions are legal. I'm not a big fan of abortion, but the Bible is not the legal authority in the United States concerning abortion or gay marriage.

I repeat "render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods" from the big guy Himself.  Things haven't changed too much from the pagan Rome times.  We still are ignoring God and deifying man ,but that is a subject I planned for another blog.  May I also remind Anti that freedom of religion is inshrined in the U.S. constitution and forcing a person to commit acts that can not be condoned by there religion is a violation of there civil rights.  I am not a fan of Islam ,but I wouldn't condone forcing a muslim to eat pork or his wife not to wear her veil.

P.S. Homsexuality is also a no no for Muslims, Jews, and Buddhist. 

That's right Wayfarer. We agree. Freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion.

However, what if you are a Satanist, and you don't want to serve Christians at your job at Burger King. Is the Satanist protected under freedom of religion to keep his job? Is that a violation of his civil rights?

The only public servants whose civil rights could possibly be violated by this law are county clerks who issue marriage licenses and judges who officiate non-religious ceremonies. It's not as if the law is arm-twisting religious groups into performing religious ceremonies for same-sex couples. It's just defining the legal meaning of marriage for purposes such as taxes, medical care and so forth. To use your phrase, the legal definition is "Caesar's" realm and has no effect on the religious side other than what people read into it. If you're going to start protesting all "immoral" uses of the phrase "marriage", you'd better add elopements in Las Vegas or marriages in front of a judge to your list, because those are purely legal marriages too. There's not really much of a "marriage before the eyes of God" when your ceremony is done by a guy in an Elvis suit.

 Oops! SoRrY I opened the wrong door. *snicker*

Hey lay off the King, Buddy!

wayfarer,

I'm not a religious scholar, but I can tell you that there are divisions regarding sexuality among the religious groups that you mentioned.  George W. Bush claims he is a christian, but his christian beliefs greatly differ than a Quaker's.  Countries that have Islam as an official religion don't support gay rights, but that does not prevent people from being gay. If sexuality was something that people could change then there wouldn't be gays in countries with draconic laws against it, but people can't change their sexuality, which is why it still exists in countries where it is illegal.

*shakes head*  Equating something with the Holocaust or Hitler seems to be the latest Christian trend.  It sickens me.  Trivializing the suffering and genocide of millions of people and making it a buzz word is disgusting.  Notice how, when fundamentalists talk about genocide, they always, always fail to recall the events in history where the Church (or Christians) exterminated people to maintain power.  Hitler was a Christian.  He believed he had God's permission to do what he did. 

For the life of me, I can't imagine how one could equate giving two people the right to marry to genodice.  What?  Are heterosexuals going to stop having babies?  There's nothing about homosexuality that should threaten stable, mature, secure heterosexuals.  For one thing, there are already homosexual couples who live like married couples.  What is going to change so drastically by giving them the same marital rights as hetero couples?  They're not asking you to stand by their bed and watch the honeymoon activities.  They're not asking you to come to their wedding or even mandate that churches perform the ceremonies.  I have to wonder what would happen if public clerks started refusing to do the paperwork on divorces?  Or, what if a teacher decided that she wouldn't teach pregnant teens?  What if a doctor refused to see a patient because they had premarital sex? 

SFinBoston - I'm so happy for you and your partner!!  I hope this legislation continues to bust through barriers.

Hot and Foggy you hit the nail on the head.  People can change there sexuality.  Just because I am heterosexual it doesn't make it right for me to chase everything in a skirt.  If I had a weakness for over eating or drug abuse.  People wouldn't pat me on the back and say  "That's O.K. you were born that way. Indulge all you want."  No to be human is to be capable of change and growth.  I can't as a man who cares for my fellow human beings condone a unhealthy life style that would lead to their eternal suffering, no matter what the public opinion is or that Oprah will call me intolerant.  The issue of homosexuality in our society is that a few are trying to convince themselves and everybody else that there unhealthy life style is healthy and normal.  They are spending a lot of money to delude a lot of people and ram it down our throats.  I for one applaud truth not opinion and those who have the courage to stand up for what is right.   

Why do Christan's spew hate and judge people when God has the finale say. Don't they think there intolerance towards people different then them may piss off the lord.  God works in mysterious ways so maybe God is sending more gays to earth to test the so called Christians and gay hater's...........So maybe it is or isn't OK to be gay but I believe that in Gods eye's its not OK to judge them.

Wayfarer: "People can change there sexuality.  Just because I am heterosexual it doesn't make it right for me to chase everything in a skirt.  If I had a weakness for over eating or drug abuse.  People wouldn't pat me on the back and say  "That's O.K. you were born that way. Indulge all you want."  No to be human is to be capable of change and growth."
 

So..... have you "grown" out of your preference for the opposite sex? What makes you think that homosexual people haven't done the "growing" and you are the one "stuck" as you were born?

"I can't as a man who cares for my fellow human beings condone a unhealthy life style that would lead to their eternal suffering, no matter what the public opinion is or that Oprah will call me intolerant.  "

Does anybody else notice the extreme irony of Way saying that "change and growth" is a human trait, yet they are the most dogmatic and rigidly unmoving person on these boards? Crusading for "truth" and "right" while insisting that eternal life is anything other than opinion? Posting several blogs a day (under many different names) while insisting that everyone else is trying to "delude a lot of people" and "ram it down our throats"?

Oh sit down wayfarer~ if I were Freudian ,I have a hay day with your language but I won't.

If your not gay this does not affect you one bit and if your threatened by it...I'd suggest a good look within 'cause something is  way wrong.

These will be civil ceremonies no religion involved~get over it.

Just a question for all of you.  Do you feel it's right to go against everything you believe in to give others what they want?

Difficult question to frame but I'm honestly curious about the outlook on it.  I'm talking about personally here, not the rights issue if it can be separated.

The question is too broad,narrow it down some. But I can tell you this:when this issue first came up I thought  let 'em marry .Then the "law" passed and what I thought right was deemed wrong,and you all got what you wanted at my "expense".

Gube, not all Christians spew hate and judge, only the bad ones do.  Oooops..I just judged didn't I?  And so did you.   We all do in one way or another.    :-)

Actually, real Christians don't spew hate.  That may be one way to tell if they are truly Christians.

Ya Sage, I was afraid it was too vague.  I guess what I'm asking is that if one truly believes that homosexuality is wrong, should they be asked to go against all they believe is right to appease gays?  If they honestly don't believe gay marriage is right, should they be forced to accept it?

I've said many, many times here on the blogs that someones rights will always trample on someone else's...that's just the way the law works because we can't please everyone all the time.  So, my question was about personal feelings and beliefs.

Please understand I'm not making any judgement here...just asking a question about the rights issue on both sides.

Gube why is the knee jerk response to say I am just a Christian spewing hate.  Try not judging me and labeling me ,but listen to what I am saying.  No were have I said that I hate homosexuals.  I do not ever condone causing another living being unnecessary pain.  What I am saying is that homosexuals are choosing for themselves a world of unnecessary pain and I must speak my mind about it even if that draws a lot of flak aimed at me.  Do i judge them, of course not!  God is the only judge which we all will go before someday and he will judge me for my sins.  One of which would be hardheartedness if I dismissed homosexuals as going to hell and not my problem.  Good question Nancy II and that is one of my core values.  To take a stand for what is right and good irregardless of what the rest of the world says. 

Matt I have never made my authorship of my blogs a secret in a attempt to fool people as some others have.  I could also point out how dogmatic and rigid you are and how cowardly it is to take cheap shots at people;) 

Nancy,

This is an easy one. My answer is NO. Core values and beliefs run very deep.

Interesting choice of words"appease"~ but IMHO ,and in this case ~yes. It is a civil rights issue,and just like we "appeased" inter racial marriage,this too is simple a human rights issue.Churches should butt out.

A lot of people who fought for civil rights would take offense at this being called a civil rights issue.  Churches are made up of individuals who have to make there own life choices and have to answer to God.  Churches were key in winning civil rights and that took indivduals to take stands against the institutionalized racism that was the accepted value of main stream society.  For some posters, I am not sure if the issue is homosexual marriages or there own personal issues with God. 

Right back at you Way~ and exactly how do you know about anyones issues with God on here? By your superior intelligence or simply 'cause we ain't in the pew next to ya"?

Wayfarer, I understand what you are trying to do from your point of view, and the intentions are good enough.

However, the harder you push your conclusions about religious questions upon people who have not accepted your religion, it will only make people fight back harder.  It serves your faith poorly because it makes people more judgmental against you, coming down hard on "hypocrisy" at your first mistake. 

It puts walls between you and the people what you believe need to hear you most.  It makes them fight you rather than listen to you.

How is that serving God as you see God to be?

What I would suggest is to serve as an example of your own faith.  That will inspire at least some people to look into what your spiritual path has to offer.

If and when they adopt your spiritual path, only then will they be receptive to reasoning based on your religious path.  Until then, you're creating resistance instead of, as you would call it, repentance.

Because you keep labeling me and "Christian" like it is a bad word and you dismiss me as a person ,because you do not share my world view. 

Thanks Apollo ,but living with out fear and speaking in love to those who hate and fear me, is living my faith.  As for converting people that is not my concern.  The process of conversion is a matter of Gods call and the persons response to that call. 

Until they adopt your faith, you face a nearly impossible language barrier.

ROFLOL~ um okay ...not once on this blog did i utter those words,but I am backing off now "cause I have seen how you get when cornered.  interesting. Sad. Because you know in your heart we have more in common than most on these blogs~ because we both believe in matters spiritual,we just disagree on execution of said matters. Go in Peace Way. But I will not label or hate or try to change another human being~ I trust and have faith all is exactly as it should be.

Wayfarer: "I could also point out how dogmatic and rigid you are and how cowardly it is to take cheap shots at people;) "
 

Oh, I'm sorry, is pointing out someone's hypocrisy considered a "cheap shot"? My bad.

He who is with out hypocrisy can throw the first stone;D 

Appease may not be the best word to use.   As I said, this wasn't an easy question to put into words to get the honest responses I hoped for.

Anglo, your answer was honest and to the point and I appreciate it.  This issue seems to bring up a lot of the "yeah but" answers though doesn't it?

When we go against our core beliefs and give in to pressure to do things we feel is wrong, is that really the right thing to do?  Is it really fair to those who don't feel THEIR beliefs are being heard?  Or addressed?

Different scenario...  In the substance abuse community there's a controversy as to whether medical MJ or Methadone clients should be allowed to participate in a drug free program because some feel they are still "using."  If one feels strongly against it, should they be made to work with clients in those situations.  They wrestle with their conscience all the time.  Now, I know these aren't the same ...sort of apples and oranges to a point, but the argument is the same.

When people are forced to accept, and tacitly condone, behavior that goes against everything they believe in, aren't THEIR rights being denied?

Wayfarer, you say that it is a matter of God's call.

What do you say if God does not call someone to adopt your spiritual tradition?

 Adam I didn't start the Nazi example ,but I used it to point out that even when the majority of a society says something is O.K. it doesn't make it so,

Buffoo finally gets it.  Just because a majority of Americans--at this point--share the prejudice that same-sex marriages aren't valid, doesn't make it so.

You know that Hitler's Germany persecuted gays too...

When people are forced to accept, and tacitly condone, behavior that goes against everything they believe in, aren't THEIR rights being denied?

No, Nancy, they aren't.  They are claiming that mere *KNOWLEDGE* that others feel they are wrong and act otherwise must be kept from them.  They are claiming the right to ignorance, in effect.

.

If you want a violation of rights, I'm going to have to see something more harmful than defense of ignorance.  (edited, I hit publish before finishing the sentence.)

.

I saw above a piece of misinformation that I didn't see corrected:  someone said that same-sex marriages were going to be exclusively civil and not religious affairs.  Absolutely incorrect, and it goes to the heart of the question:  same-sex couples are asking the right to be able to follow *THEIR* relgious beliefs the same as everyone else.

Thanks for the question Apollo ,but to be fair to Boston let us not discuss religions on his blog.  I will answer you on todays Sojourner7 post. 

Death penalty~goes against all I believe in,my "rights" are not being denied just my beliefs. Gay couples are being denied their rights<which should be the same as yours or any other heteros> without having to jump thru any extra hoops.

That was me RF~ and thanks for the correction,your absolutly right.:-)