171
submitted 7 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 57 points 7 months ago

If your beliefs prevent you from fulfilling the duties of your job, then you should probably consider changing jobs.

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Snowflakes are going to codify being a snowflake into law.

[-] Deello@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah! I can't even call you gay in certain states because of these snowflake laws. To make it worst they want that level of control at a national level. Damn snowflakes. Don't go all angry dragon on me now.

/s

[-] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 26 points 7 months ago

If I were a county clerk there, I'd refuse to marry hetero weddings.

Just kidding, I'm not a trash human being that would do that based on, well, anything. I think discrimination is a piece of shit thing to do regardless of the claimed underpinnings.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 6 months ago

This law doesn't allow county clerks to refuse giving out marriage licenses. It specifies performing a wedding ceremony. It won't force someone to perform a wedding against their will.

I swear, people on here are so overly PC they won't even read anything. They'll just automatically upvote anything that looks pro gay at face value and down vote anything that looks anti gay.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 7 months ago

...a thing that they could already do, if they so chose.

[-] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago

It's about the message. The shitty, Christian supremacist message.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This whole debate is about the wrong thing. Let each church perform its marriages. Make no laws about whether the state, other churches, or anyone needs to recognize the marriage. Attach no rights or privileges to marriage. Get the government all the way out of marriage.

Parents can have custody of children without marriage. People can own property together without marriage. People can get healthcare without marriage.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

So you'd be forced to use a church to get married, or pay higher taxes because the government won't provide you a secular option? This is not a solution...

Also, giving churches this sole power will only lead to arranged / child marriages, because Christians love that shit.

People deserve the right to a courthouse marriage, and the government shouldn't let an official's superstitions interfere with their duties.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Why does the government need to be involved in the religious union?

If you need rights or protections from the government, get those separately. Why does a religious wedding need to be involved? Why should a religious wedding be involved in how much you pay in taxes? If you want to declare joint/family tax filing, why get the church involved? Just fill out and submit a form with the involved parties. If it’s two random adults who live together, and want to save on taxes, why include being married as some weird hurdle?

Want to prevent pedos fucking kids? Then don’t make an exception because of religious marriages. Make the law apply to everyone in all cases.

If you want a religious union and you’re gay, do that in a church that welcomes gay weddings.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 months ago

People deserve the right to a courthouse marriage

People deserve a right to whatever they want to do to live their lives. Marriage just simply shouldn't interface with a government function on any level. Legal rights to property can be hashed out with legal agreements that already exist. This would also allow all the marriage-related and child-related complexities added to the tax code to go away.

It makes the legal/emotional/religious/belief overlap not exist in a government sense, neuters the power the domestic terrorist fundie crazies would have in attempting to make everyone's lives more painful, and removes legal noise from laws across the nation. (Oversimplification of course, there would be pitfalls that would need addressing to fill in gaps that would appear.)

Marriage as a religious function is just a holdover tradition that can continue on unabated without it feeling left out.

[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

I would imagine the goal is to get this to the supreme court so the current ruling is over turned.

Our Supreme Court is a joke and should be changed.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That's fair enough so long as it's countered. When same-sex marriage came out here way back, officials had the right to their beliefs like everyone else and could opt out of breaking their beliefs etc. Knowing this, there was also a surge of officials that focused on same-sex marriages. Now it's as simple as,

"Do you do this one or the other or both?"

"The other one. But this person does this one."

Pretty rare to find anyone that gives a fuck, though. I'd say there's more lean toward same-sex just because of how many same-sex only people popped up at the start.

this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
171 points (97.2% liked)

News

22890 readers
4678 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS