That's one way of doing it.County Clerk Protests Calif. Gay Marriage Law
Gives Gay Couples ''Certificate Of Inequality"
(CBS) DAVIS, Calif. A county clerk in Yolo County, Calif., is firing back at the system that forces her to deny gay couples the right to marry.
This Valentine's Day a lot of couples will be getting married, but once again, California's gay couples will be denied that opportunity.
The woman in charge of denying those licenses decided that she's going to give them her own certificate.
Freddie Oakley is in charge of civil marriages in Yolo County. She is not looking forward to Valentine's Day.
"It is a very unpleasant task and it gets harder every time I have to do it," said Freddie.
In protest of California law, Freddie is giving out her own certificate, it's called a Certificate of Inequality, a sarcastic slap in the face on California's ban on gay marriage.
"What it essentially says -- the law says you can't get married. But I, Freddie Oakley, say 'that's too bad'," said Freddie.
Only Freddie is not gay. She's been married for 37 years to the same man, has two kids and is an Evangelical Christian.
"I don't think that religion belongs at the office. I think it's wrong. I don't go down and tell my pastor how to preach and I don't want him to stand behind my counter," said Freddie.
Word of her intentions has spread and she's getting several nasty responses, but whether you agree with her or not, the controversy is quite clear.
When asked if she thought taking a stand is the place of a public official she had this to say: "I think it absolutely is. In fact, I think it's our duty. We don't just enforce laws, we're policy makers," said Freddie.
And while she is an elected official, she's not concerned about re-election, she's just standing up for what she believes in.
"If I'm comfortable in my morale heart that I'm doing the right thing, then let the chips fall where they may," said Freddie.
She insists that no tax money goes towards these certificates. She prints them at home from her computer. And the few that ask her to mail them one, she says she will pay for postage herself.
Her colleagues aren't saying anything so far about the certificates; that could just be because she's their boss.
County Clerk Protests Calif. Gay Marriage Law
Player-X
That's one way of doing it.
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
why do you insist on treating me like a bible thumper? i'm an athiest. i just believe that religious people should be able to keep their religion in peace without having to have people constantly treating them as stupid.
I am addressing what these people who are trying to mix church and state believe not what you believe.
Joined
·
17,186 Posts
And that's exactly the point in this matter. There's no religion involved, it's a civil marriage being denied, that's the unfair part.
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
remove the word marriage from the equation and suddenly i have no problem with this.
Joined
·
17,186 Posts
That would make it engrish.
Either way, I've made my point, I rest my case.
Either way, I've made my point, I rest my case.
Joined
·
829 Posts
gay marriage, no matter what form it's in is ok with me. showing love between 2 people is what it's about, not their sexual preference. and seta-san: why the objection with the word "marriage" being used in the same sentence as "gay" or "homosexual"? marriage implies a ceremony to show that you and your partner are committed to each other and love each other. if the couple is of the same sex or not, the word "marriage" can still be applied without a change of meaning. the only reason people are likely to think it's wrong is beacuse the majority of people who think that have been bought up with the traditional values of marriage is only for a couple who are heterosexual. i'm not even going to bring religion in since that makes it a bigger minefield.
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
first of all the commandment is "keep holy the sabbath"... not "thou shalt not work". next i hardly see any of the commandments being redefined. i see them simply being ignored.
Joined
·
7,484 Posts
As odd as it may seem, I fully agree with Seta that marriage is a concept intrinsically linked with our social and religious roots. As society had a tendency to shun homosexuality and brush it under the rug into past years, marriage entered legal grounds as many other widespread social and religious uses have done, like wearing clothes and the convenience of not killing your neighbours, mainly because of the convenience of institutionalizing such commonplace activities and restrictions.
However, as our society has evolved and we have come to accept homosexuality as a perfectly normal event, discarded the correctness of the "natural way" in favor of our more advanced rational ways and such, we have also to realize that marriage never had anything to do with legality beyond the convenience of having civil unions and religious marriage named the same. Our main problem here is with radical religious groups trying to keep the sanctity of the word untainted. Then let's just let them have their way. We can keep all the legal consequences of civil marriages through normal civil unions and two persons societies, while leaving marriage where it originally belonged: in the church of its respective cult.
However, as our society has evolved and we have come to accept homosexuality as a perfectly normal event, discarded the correctness of the "natural way" in favor of our more advanced rational ways and such, we have also to realize that marriage never had anything to do with legality beyond the convenience of having civil unions and religious marriage named the same. Our main problem here is with radical religious groups trying to keep the sanctity of the word untainted. Then let's just let them have their way. We can keep all the legal consequences of civil marriages through normal civil unions and two persons societies, while leaving marriage where it originally belonged: in the church of its respective cult.
I didn't say they were being changed, also I think the point of that commandment is that you should pray rather than work on that day and yet I see all these people who are against gay marriage "because the bible says so" working at the local Wal-Mart on Sunday.
Why don't we just officially call all marriages "civil-unions and then let them refer to it however they want in which case the gays cannot say that they cannot marry as they can call that civil union a marriage along side straight people will use the term marriage out of tradition, anyone not calling that marriage is within his rights and so no one can complain either way without looking somewhat stupid, problem solved.
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
I can see only two problems with Seta-San's plan.
People throughout the ages have used marriage as part of record keeping systems and even right now marriage is still quite a central part of most record keeping systems such as the parents of a child or the residents in a house, if marriage as a legal institution were to be removed it would require a massive overhaul to most recode keeping systems.
Another problem is that religious leaders will fight such a move and they have a large following, in a democracy where church and state mix on the level of the people this will be a difficult thing to accomplish.
I do like the idea and the idea I suggested in a previous post is what I consider a workable realistic first step towards abolishing marriage as a legal institution.
People throughout the ages have used marriage as part of record keeping systems and even right now marriage is still quite a central part of most record keeping systems such as the parents of a child or the residents in a house, if marriage as a legal institution were to be removed it would require a massive overhaul to most recode keeping systems.
Another problem is that religious leaders will fight such a move and they have a large following, in a democracy where church and state mix on the level of the people this will be a difficult thing to accomplish.
I do like the idea and the idea I suggested in a previous post is what I consider a workable realistic first step towards abolishing marriage as a legal institution.
Joined
·
2,970 Posts
it is strange how Seta just seemed to ignore my question, why can not marriage be redifined?
The only difference that actually remains between civil union and marriage is how it's spelled and where it is vowed. Marriage is when you enter such a union in church. What if the gay couple wants to marry, because they too are religious?
The only difference that actually remains between civil union and marriage is how it's spelled and where it is vowed. Marriage is when you enter such a union in church. What if the gay couple wants to marry, because they too are religious?
Joined
·
7,484 Posts
Then they can do that in the church, keep the religion to themselves, and do the proper separation between religion and politics that every state needs so much.
The problem with redefining marriage concentrates around two things:
- You would have an outcry of every traditional religious group out there
- it's not really necessary, since you would obtain the exact same benefits for you and your couple from the state
If you are talking to rational people then they should be able to realize that. As I said, marriage never was a task for the state to perform, let's get moving :nod:
The problem with redefining marriage concentrates around two things:
- You would have an outcry of every traditional religious group out there
- it's not really necessary, since you would obtain the exact same benefits for you and your couple from the state
If you are talking to rational people then they should be able to realize that. As I said, marriage never was a task for the state to perform, let's get moving :nod:
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
because marriage in the social aspect is a religous concept that is basically monolithic and marriage from a legal aspect isn't really "marriage" but a contract and license. if, on a legal level, they dropped the word marriage and took up the "civil union" almost everyone is happy.
Joined
·
2,970 Posts
yeah, but it's still meaningless discrimination. I thought "god" wanted humans to be kind and caring, not cruel and wicked.
i really couldn't have guessed.
(taken from the "global orgasm to change to world" thread)
i really couldn't have guessed.
Legally speaking all marriges are treated as a contract or civil union, they use the term marriage to describe such a union due to the tradition of the English language more then religion, the problem comes from the fact that the states banned civil unions between homosexual couples.
I noticed a strange double standard here in the US, if two women are kissing just about everyone seems to approve of it but if it's between two men it's a whole different story.
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
because the global orgasm thing is more retarded than scientology. i was saying that simply praying to the wind is just as useful. the global orgasm was simply an organized excuse to wank.
Joined
·
17,186 Posts
God made humans to be like himself IIRC, so there you have your answer
I think people are just mixing up the word 'marriage'. Throughout time the word has evolved and it got the meaning of a bond between two people. Like I already said, here in the Netherlands there's the civil marriage, and the religious marriage where you get blessed by church and stuff.Seta San said:
From what I've picked up from the story at hand, gay people are denied the civil marriage as well. I don't even see a reason why religious people should have any influence on this type of marriage in their first place, it's not their damned business if two people form a civil bond and live together. Is it really just the word 'marriage' that is bothering them? (totally ignoring the 'civil' part here) I highly doubt it...
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
