On 06-Jan-09 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:02:07 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example,
>>> clergy, to marry people when that union goes against the religious
>>> beliefs.
>> The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the
>> same right to refuse.
> 
> I think that a civil servant would not/should not have the right to 
> refuse.  If they take the job, they know what they may be asked to do.  
> You can't take a job and then object to doing the job.

unless perhaps the law was passed after they took the job.

> It's like people here in the US who decide to become pharmacists and then 
> refuse to dispense medications because of their religious beliefs.  Too 
> bad, they knew they might have to do that when they signed up to do the 
> job.  If it's a legal prescription in the jurisdiction, they do not have 
> the right to refuse service for any reason other than nonpayment.
> 

[]

>> Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states
>> and countries?
> 
> If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My 
> marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious 
> ceremony), so it already is.

does that mean you have one or the other? Here civil is required 
religious is an extra option with no real consequences (although my 
parents only celebrated the religious one and considered the civil one a 
superfluous extra)

> In the eyes of the Mormon church, my marriage isn't valid, because we're 
> not Mormon, but I don't really care about my status in the Mormon 
> church.  Similarly, I don't really care about my marriage's status in 
> Outer Mongolia, but if I did care, then I'd do some research to find out 
> what I had to do to make sure we got the rights and privileges that were 
> important to us should we move there.

or go on holiday

Post a reply to this message