This is a double post but since I am interested in both sides of the story... what is your opinion?

Question

I live in a country where gay marriage is legal and common and has been since 2001. Recently we got a new cabinet, and one of the members of the cabinet is a party that very much profiles itself as a Christian party. Now a discussion has burst loose over so called "refusal civil servants", civil servants who refuse to marry gays and call upon the moral problems it would cause them, usually because of the fact that their religion prohibits, frowns upon or otherwise judges active homosexuality as bad.
Now there are roughly two sides: the people who say that a civil servant is a servant of the law and should therefore marry anyone as long as it is not against the law for those persons to marry, and the people who say that everybody is entitled to his or her own ideas about morality and homosexuality and no civil servant should be "forced" to conduct marriages against their own believes.
What do you think? (any other opinions are welcome too, of course)

Answer 1

All kinds of people exist and all should be free. The refusal servants can't block the marriage and should not be forced to participate with something that they believe is wrong. That is like conscripting conscientious objectors. These people should be allowed to not participate because others can perform the same duty and then everyone gets what they want.

Answer 2

So if your country was at war, would the civil servants refuse to pay soldiers' salaries because their pastor is against the war?

We could go on and on, but the issue here is that we must not judge other people, and we must do all we had agreed to do (which in this case is for the civil servants to carry out their duties without sentiments).

When we judge others, we are encroaching on their property (their fundamental rights). When we refuse to do something that we had earlier agreed to do, then this also wrong. Every religion agrees to these two laws.

I am assuming that the civil servants have the option of turning in their resignation rather than do something against their conscience.

Answer 3

While a civil servant should indeed perform all reasonable duties, the creation of 'gay marriage' has completely redefined the word marriage. From an English perspective, an act that forty years ago was subject to a prison sentence of seven years has now been beatified to give advantages to homosexuals that are not available to normal people.
My sympathies go to the refuseniks (or whatever the Dutch term is).

To those who enthusiastically call for the officials to be sacked, consider your reaction if a right wing government obliged officials to carry out an onerous task and they refused.

Answer 4

This reminds me of the recent 'problems' over anti-discrimination legislation in the UK. While most people agree that it is unreasonable to deny people a commercial service on the basis of their sexuality it has caused difficulties for Christian adoption agencies, since they do not wish to place children with gay couples.

And while I sympathise with your civil servants (and the UK adoption agencies) I do feel that if one discriminates against one group then the basis for your discrimination becomes largely irrelevant. It is still discrimination.

So I hope that a compromise can be found. Perhaps it would be possible for those employed before the relevant legislation to 'opt out' for a while. But in the end, the law is the law. If someone cannot carry out all the functions of their employment, then perhaps they are in the wrong job?
.

Answer 5

The civil servant is meant to work for the government who have been voted in by the people. If there is conflict of interest, because of their religious beliefs (no matter how ridiculous they sound to others and non religious people) - THEN they should NOT BE A civil servant. perhaps they should consider moving to another country under a dictatorship!

Answer 6

I think the civil servants who refuse to conduct gay marriages are refusing to do their job and should be fired immediately. They are there to do a job and should put their own beliefs aside whilst at work. If their beliefs conflict with the job they have top do then they need a new job - simple.

Answer 7

I'm dutch too (as far as I know we're the first ones who legalised it and we did it in 2001) :)

Civil servants are just that: servants of the law. They should execute the law. If the law says gay marriage is OK then they should follow the law or quit their job.

Answer 8

the two way next mondays uncooked would be historic, yet wwe has the main appropriate to the sector they signed a settlement to be booked interior the sector way be for the nuggets the place, if wwe gets the ax u can wager wwe long gone sue stan kroenke and wwe long gone win reason they have a settlement. i reading some comments and individuals saying wwe could step aside wwe hapens a week playoffs dont properly its no longer approximately climate wwe is confirmed each and each week or the nugets interior the playoffs, its approximately organization its a pair of corperation if wwe steps aside they lose alot of money and prefer vince reported keoenke could of had extra faith in his group dont e book some thing whilst theres a possiblity your group might prefer the stadium for a play off interest...its all approximately organization and from the look wwe has the uper hand they have have a signed settlement

Answer 9

Aren't there enough civil servants to marry the gays without infringing on those who don't want to? Do you have so many gay marriages that you have to force them against their will. I am legalized to perform marriage in my country but I don't have to marry anyone if I don't want to. They just go to someone else.

Answer 10

I think that if these civil servants have such a problem with marrying same sex partners they should rethink their jobs! They are they to marry - what is soo different about these gay weddings, they are still two people in love, they should either try to accept this fact or get a new job!!