On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:41:51 +0100, andrel wrote:

> 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.

Then they have the option of seeking other employment.  As a public 
servant, their first duty is to serve the public, not their own personal 
prejudices.  That is what I mean by "they may be asked to do things they 
morally object to" - not just in current law, but laws change.  That's 
part of the job.

If they want to object, they can object by quitting.  The cannot object 
by infringing on the rights of citizens under the current laws of the 
jurisdiction.  They are paid to enforce and enact the laws, not to decide 
which laws should be enforced.  If they wanted to decide that, they 
should've gotten a job writing laws.

>>> 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)

Here in the US, a civil marriage is required.  A religious marriage is 
optional.  In most cases, you get get both at the same time by being 
married by clergy.  A justice of the peace (JP - aka a "judge") cannot 
generally perform a religious marriage.  So pretty much the same here as 
there.

>> 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

Only if there are specific problems with us being married here but not in 
the eyes of the locals as we are on holiday there.  For example, if the 
local custom is to only allow a couple to share a room if they are 
married by a local tribal chief, then the chances of us taking a holiday 
there are pretty small.

Generally, legal protections only become a significant issue when you get 
into immigration status for purposes of residency requirements.

Jim

Post a reply to this message