However it is Yolo County Clerk Freddie Oakley who is leading the way. She will give the couples a “Certificate of Inequality.”
“Whereas: The state of California arrogates the right to limit your freedom to marry based on the gender of your chosen spouse, and
Whereas: Based on your choice of spouse I may NOT issue a license to marry to you, and
“Whereas: I am unable to divine any legitimate governmental purpose in the regulation of your marriage partner’s gender,Now, therefore: I issue this Certificate of Inequality to you because your choice of marriage partner displeases some people whose displeasure is, apparently, more important that principles of equality.
Issued to: (a name here) and signed, this day, February 14, 2007
Freddie Oakley, Yolo County Clerk-Recorder.”
The San Francisco Chronicle on Monday covered Yolo County Clerk Freddie Oakley.
“I issue this Certificate of Inequality to you,” the document reads, in part, “Because your choice of marriage partner displeases some people whose displeasure is, apparently, more important than principles of equality.”
“This is my fifth year as county clerk and the fifth year in which I will be refusing marriage licenses to people of the same gender,” Oakley said. “It gets harder every year.”
Meanwhile Randy Thomasson of “Campaign for Children and Families” is trying to mobilize against Oakley.
Californians, protect marriage in the public square on Valentine’s Day!
Homosexual activists are demanding marriage licenses again. This Valentine’s Day in California, same-sex marriage advocates will barge into 20 county clerk’s offices, asserting the right to be called husband and husband and wife and wife.
The situation is at its worst in Woodland, northeast of Sacramento, where County Clerk Freddie Oakley a self-proclaimed “evangelical Christian” who supports homosexual marriage will issue so-called “certificates of inequality” which support homosexual “marriages” to homosexual activists who come to her office on Valentine’s Day.
…
This is like San Francisco all over again. Oakley’s misuse of her public office has caught the attention of the media. We must protest this county clerk. We must stamp out the fire of corruption that she has started by violating her solemn oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of a county clerk.
This group is intending to have large numbers in protest of Ms. Oakley’s stance. The ceremony starts at noon outside of the County Administration building.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
toto macau
situs slto
link slot
togel online
situs togel
jacktoto
bo togel
jacktoto
jacktoto
I assume that Freedie Oakley is being careful that this is not being done on County time and that any costs involved are not coming out of County funds… otherwise, unless her position explicitedly allows her to do this kind of thing, I suspect it will become a political donnybrook.
I assume that Freedie Oakley is being careful that this is not being done on County time and that any costs involved are not coming out of County funds… otherwise, unless her position explicitedly allows her to do this kind of thing, I suspect it will become a political donnybrook.
I assume that Freedie Oakley is being careful that this is not being done on County time and that any costs involved are not coming out of County funds… otherwise, unless her position explicitedly allows her to do this kind of thing, I suspect it will become a political donnybrook.
I assume that Freedie Oakley is being careful that this is not being done on County time and that any costs involved are not coming out of County funds… otherwise, unless her position explicitedly allows her to do this kind of thing, I suspect it will become a political donnybrook.
She’s paying for this out of her pocket, she is doing it outside so that it does not disturb the operations of her office, and she is doing it on her lunch break.
She’s paying for this out of her pocket, she is doing it outside so that it does not disturb the operations of her office, and she is doing it on her lunch break.
She’s paying for this out of her pocket, she is doing it outside so that it does not disturb the operations of her office, and she is doing it on her lunch break.
She’s paying for this out of her pocket, she is doing it outside so that it does not disturb the operations of her office, and she is doing it on her lunch break.
As someone who takes an active and professional interest in the conduct of elections, I can say that Freddie Oakley is the most conscientious, thorough and effective county clerk I have come across in California. If these alleged protestors think they’re going to indict her conduct they’ve got another thing coming to them. I’m also fairly certain, having seen her in action, that she will be sure to dot her I’s and cross her T’s to ensure this doesn’t violate any relevant statute regarding use of public time and funds. Good for her!
As someone who takes an active and professional interest in the conduct of elections, I can say that Freddie Oakley is the most conscientious, thorough and effective county clerk I have come across in California. If these alleged protestors think they’re going to indict her conduct they’ve got another thing coming to them. I’m also fairly certain, having seen her in action, that she will be sure to dot her I’s and cross her T’s to ensure this doesn’t violate any relevant statute regarding use of public time and funds. Good for her!
As someone who takes an active and professional interest in the conduct of elections, I can say that Freddie Oakley is the most conscientious, thorough and effective county clerk I have come across in California. If these alleged protestors think they’re going to indict her conduct they’ve got another thing coming to them. I’m also fairly certain, having seen her in action, that she will be sure to dot her I’s and cross her T’s to ensure this doesn’t violate any relevant statute regarding use of public time and funds. Good for her!
As someone who takes an active and professional interest in the conduct of elections, I can say that Freddie Oakley is the most conscientious, thorough and effective county clerk I have come across in California. If these alleged protestors think they’re going to indict her conduct they’ve got another thing coming to them. I’m also fairly certain, having seen her in action, that she will be sure to dot her I’s and cross her T’s to ensure this doesn’t violate any relevant statute regarding use of public time and funds. Good for her!
“We must stamp out the fire of corruption that she has started”
Rhetoric and thoughts like that certainly contribute to social problems in our schools.SAH
“We must stamp out the fire of corruption that she has started”
Rhetoric and thoughts like that certainly contribute to social problems in our schools.SAH
“We must stamp out the fire of corruption that she has started”
Rhetoric and thoughts like that certainly contribute to social problems in our schools.SAH
“We must stamp out the fire of corruption that she has started”
Rhetoric and thoughts like that certainly contribute to social problems in our schools.SAH
The protest by the “Campaign for Children and Families” will just end up looking hateful in a county that is very sensitive to discrimination and bias. Their involvement may just end up being good for the community and make the annual protest by Shelly & Ellen, et al, national news.
People of Yolo County should attend to show support and protect the couples arriving from these out of county protesters. Freddie Oakley needs to be supported in excercising her right to expression.
The protest by the “Campaign for Children and Families” will just end up looking hateful in a county that is very sensitive to discrimination and bias. Their involvement may just end up being good for the community and make the annual protest by Shelly & Ellen, et al, national news.
People of Yolo County should attend to show support and protect the couples arriving from these out of county protesters. Freddie Oakley needs to be supported in excercising her right to expression.
The protest by the “Campaign for Children and Families” will just end up looking hateful in a county that is very sensitive to discrimination and bias. Their involvement may just end up being good for the community and make the annual protest by Shelly & Ellen, et al, national news.
People of Yolo County should attend to show support and protect the couples arriving from these out of county protesters. Freddie Oakley needs to be supported in excercising her right to expression.
The protest by the “Campaign for Children and Families” will just end up looking hateful in a county that is very sensitive to discrimination and bias. Their involvement may just end up being good for the community and make the annual protest by Shelly & Ellen, et al, national news.
People of Yolo County should attend to show support and protect the couples arriving from these out of county protesters. Freddie Oakley needs to be supported in excercising her right to expression.
The United States was founded during a time of enlightenment – it was an age of reason. One of the best ideas the founders of our country came up with is the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
When it comes to same-sex marriage, both sides are served well by it.
The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution allows those opposed to same-sex marriage to protest and to speak their mind. Additionally, their religion cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages due to the Establishment Clause. In short, they can protest same-sex marriage all they want, and never have to perform one.
Conversely, the Establishment Clause should allow the state or a religion that supports and would perform same-sex marriages to do so. A marriage certificate comes from the state. A civil ceremony is from the state. Then, there are other progressive religions such as Unitarian-Universalism that will perform same-sex marriages. The state and progressive religious denominations should have a constitutional right to marry anyone they want, heterosexual or same-sex.
I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage. The only grounds for being against same-sex marriage are solely religious.
The First Amendment rocks!
Freddie Oakley is a true patriot…
The United States was founded during a time of enlightenment – it was an age of reason. One of the best ideas the founders of our country came up with is the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
When it comes to same-sex marriage, both sides are served well by it.
The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution allows those opposed to same-sex marriage to protest and to speak their mind. Additionally, their religion cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages due to the Establishment Clause. In short, they can protest same-sex marriage all they want, and never have to perform one.
Conversely, the Establishment Clause should allow the state or a religion that supports and would perform same-sex marriages to do so. A marriage certificate comes from the state. A civil ceremony is from the state. Then, there are other progressive religions such as Unitarian-Universalism that will perform same-sex marriages. The state and progressive religious denominations should have a constitutional right to marry anyone they want, heterosexual or same-sex.
I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage. The only grounds for being against same-sex marriage are solely religious.
The First Amendment rocks!
Freddie Oakley is a true patriot…
The United States was founded during a time of enlightenment – it was an age of reason. One of the best ideas the founders of our country came up with is the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
When it comes to same-sex marriage, both sides are served well by it.
The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution allows those opposed to same-sex marriage to protest and to speak their mind. Additionally, their religion cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages due to the Establishment Clause. In short, they can protest same-sex marriage all they want, and never have to perform one.
Conversely, the Establishment Clause should allow the state or a religion that supports and would perform same-sex marriages to do so. A marriage certificate comes from the state. A civil ceremony is from the state. Then, there are other progressive religions such as Unitarian-Universalism that will perform same-sex marriages. The state and progressive religious denominations should have a constitutional right to marry anyone they want, heterosexual or same-sex.
I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage. The only grounds for being against same-sex marriage are solely religious.
The First Amendment rocks!
Freddie Oakley is a true patriot…
The United States was founded during a time of enlightenment – it was an age of reason. One of the best ideas the founders of our country came up with is the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
When it comes to same-sex marriage, both sides are served well by it.
The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution allows those opposed to same-sex marriage to protest and to speak their mind. Additionally, their religion cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages due to the Establishment Clause. In short, they can protest same-sex marriage all they want, and never have to perform one.
Conversely, the Establishment Clause should allow the state or a religion that supports and would perform same-sex marriages to do so. A marriage certificate comes from the state. A civil ceremony is from the state. Then, there are other progressive religions such as Unitarian-Universalism that will perform same-sex marriages. The state and progressive religious denominations should have a constitutional right to marry anyone they want, heterosexual or same-sex.
I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage. The only grounds for being against same-sex marriage are solely religious.
The First Amendment rocks!
Freddie Oakley is a true patriot…
“I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage.”
Blueshift,
I agree with your post in general. However, the “prohibitions” on gay marriage do not violate anyone’s first amendment rights. Any church, temple, synagogue, etc. has the total freedom to marry gay couples (and of course, many do). Those marriages are, of course, not recognized by most states. But they are marriages in the religious sense, nonetheless.
My opinion, based on my reading of the Constitution (as a non-lawyer) is that the best constitutional argument comes under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: “Nor shall any state … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Obviously, the original intent of that section of XIV was not to protect homosexual civil rights.
However, in that lawful marriage, in an of itself, serves as a protection from outside interests to the married couple, the denial of legal marriage to gays by most states has the effect of denying equal protection under the law. And as such, I think such denials are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
No one would doubt, for example, if a state denied a gay couple the right to incorporate their business because of their homosexuality that such discrimination would deny them equal protection under the law. Why? Because lawful incorporation, in and of itself, affords legal protection to the assets of the inidividuals who choose to incorporate their enterprises.
Thus, it seems quite inconsistant to not see that denial of legal marriage has the same effect, violating their rights on the 14th Amendment.
“I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage.”
Blueshift,
I agree with your post in general. However, the “prohibitions” on gay marriage do not violate anyone’s first amendment rights. Any church, temple, synagogue, etc. has the total freedom to marry gay couples (and of course, many do). Those marriages are, of course, not recognized by most states. But they are marriages in the religious sense, nonetheless.
My opinion, based on my reading of the Constitution (as a non-lawyer) is that the best constitutional argument comes under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: “Nor shall any state … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Obviously, the original intent of that section of XIV was not to protect homosexual civil rights.
However, in that lawful marriage, in an of itself, serves as a protection from outside interests to the married couple, the denial of legal marriage to gays by most states has the effect of denying equal protection under the law. And as such, I think such denials are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
No one would doubt, for example, if a state denied a gay couple the right to incorporate their business because of their homosexuality that such discrimination would deny them equal protection under the law. Why? Because lawful incorporation, in and of itself, affords legal protection to the assets of the inidividuals who choose to incorporate their enterprises.
Thus, it seems quite inconsistant to not see that denial of legal marriage has the same effect, violating their rights on the 14th Amendment.
“I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage.”
Blueshift,
I agree with your post in general. However, the “prohibitions” on gay marriage do not violate anyone’s first amendment rights. Any church, temple, synagogue, etc. has the total freedom to marry gay couples (and of course, many do). Those marriages are, of course, not recognized by most states. But they are marriages in the religious sense, nonetheless.
My opinion, based on my reading of the Constitution (as a non-lawyer) is that the best constitutional argument comes under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: “Nor shall any state … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Obviously, the original intent of that section of XIV was not to protect homosexual civil rights.
However, in that lawful marriage, in an of itself, serves as a protection from outside interests to the married couple, the denial of legal marriage to gays by most states has the effect of denying equal protection under the law. And as such, I think such denials are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
No one would doubt, for example, if a state denied a gay couple the right to incorporate their business because of their homosexuality that such discrimination would deny them equal protection under the law. Why? Because lawful incorporation, in and of itself, affords legal protection to the assets of the inidividuals who choose to incorporate their enterprises.
Thus, it seems quite inconsistant to not see that denial of legal marriage has the same effect, violating their rights on the 14th Amendment.
“I have always been surprised that proponents have not used the First Amendment with its freedom of religion, as well as freedom from someone else’s religion, to bring about legal same-sex marriage.”
Blueshift,
I agree with your post in general. However, the “prohibitions” on gay marriage do not violate anyone’s first amendment rights. Any church, temple, synagogue, etc. has the total freedom to marry gay couples (and of course, many do). Those marriages are, of course, not recognized by most states. But they are marriages in the religious sense, nonetheless.
My opinion, based on my reading of the Constitution (as a non-lawyer) is that the best constitutional argument comes under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: “Nor shall any state … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Obviously, the original intent of that section of XIV was not to protect homosexual civil rights.
However, in that lawful marriage, in an of itself, serves as a protection from outside interests to the married couple, the denial of legal marriage to gays by most states has the effect of denying equal protection under the law. And as such, I think such denials are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
No one would doubt, for example, if a state denied a gay couple the right to incorporate their business because of their homosexuality that such discrimination would deny them equal protection under the law. Why? Because lawful incorporation, in and of itself, affords legal protection to the assets of the inidividuals who choose to incorporate their enterprises.
Thus, it seems quite inconsistant to not see that denial of legal marriage has the same effect, violating their rights on the 14th Amendment.
i think that it is a 1st amendment issue, in that opponents of marriage equality are in effect trying to use the authority of the state to enforce their side of a sectarian difference of opinion.
thus, as the state should remain neutral WRT religion, it should not accept a baptist definition of marriage, and rule illegal the congregationalist or quaker definitions of marriage.
the state does not refuse to accept the validity of interfaith or atheist mariages, even though many churches might; the same should be true of same-sex marriages.
that being said, i tend to agree with rifkin thsat the 14th amendment is the more likely authority that will eventually be used to toss this 21st century analogue of loving v. virginia.
oakley is a gem. we’re lucky to have her as a county clerk.
i think that it is a 1st amendment issue, in that opponents of marriage equality are in effect trying to use the authority of the state to enforce their side of a sectarian difference of opinion.
thus, as the state should remain neutral WRT religion, it should not accept a baptist definition of marriage, and rule illegal the congregationalist or quaker definitions of marriage.
the state does not refuse to accept the validity of interfaith or atheist mariages, even though many churches might; the same should be true of same-sex marriages.
that being said, i tend to agree with rifkin thsat the 14th amendment is the more likely authority that will eventually be used to toss this 21st century analogue of loving v. virginia.
oakley is a gem. we’re lucky to have her as a county clerk.
i think that it is a 1st amendment issue, in that opponents of marriage equality are in effect trying to use the authority of the state to enforce their side of a sectarian difference of opinion.
thus, as the state should remain neutral WRT religion, it should not accept a baptist definition of marriage, and rule illegal the congregationalist or quaker definitions of marriage.
the state does not refuse to accept the validity of interfaith or atheist mariages, even though many churches might; the same should be true of same-sex marriages.
that being said, i tend to agree with rifkin thsat the 14th amendment is the more likely authority that will eventually be used to toss this 21st century analogue of loving v. virginia.
oakley is a gem. we’re lucky to have her as a county clerk.
i think that it is a 1st amendment issue, in that opponents of marriage equality are in effect trying to use the authority of the state to enforce their side of a sectarian difference of opinion.
thus, as the state should remain neutral WRT religion, it should not accept a baptist definition of marriage, and rule illegal the congregationalist or quaker definitions of marriage.
the state does not refuse to accept the validity of interfaith or atheist mariages, even though many churches might; the same should be true of same-sex marriages.
that being said, i tend to agree with rifkin thsat the 14th amendment is the more likely authority that will eventually be used to toss this 21st century analogue of loving v. virginia.
oakley is a gem. we’re lucky to have her as a county clerk.
The reason the religious right is trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is that their argument runs counter to both the First and 14th Amendments. If they cannot change the Constitution, then it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is ruled legal in the United States. Those opposed to gays and lesbians having legal marriage know they are on the wrong side of the Constitution and that is why they are desperate to change it.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is problematic for them. While all U.S. citizens are granted equal protection and application of the law, there is a loophole. In order for the government be allowedto ban same-sex marriage, opponents have to prove a rational argument for the government to make gays and lesbians a “special class” in order to deny them equal protection and rights that other citizens have.
They don’t have one.
Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity) they don’t get their “special class” injunction and they also run smack into problems with the First Amendment.
The 14th Amendment also knocks off the idea of those favoring “civil unions” for lesbian and gay couples, while hetero couples can get married. Brown v. Board of Education told Americans there is no such thing as “separate but equal.”
Since that strategy won’t work, the religious right has to change the Constitution.
We ain’t going to let them.
See you at Freddie’s ceremony…
The reason the religious right is trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is that their argument runs counter to both the First and 14th Amendments. If they cannot change the Constitution, then it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is ruled legal in the United States. Those opposed to gays and lesbians having legal marriage know they are on the wrong side of the Constitution and that is why they are desperate to change it.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is problematic for them. While all U.S. citizens are granted equal protection and application of the law, there is a loophole. In order for the government be allowedto ban same-sex marriage, opponents have to prove a rational argument for the government to make gays and lesbians a “special class” in order to deny them equal protection and rights that other citizens have.
They don’t have one.
Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity) they don’t get their “special class” injunction and they also run smack into problems with the First Amendment.
The 14th Amendment also knocks off the idea of those favoring “civil unions” for lesbian and gay couples, while hetero couples can get married. Brown v. Board of Education told Americans there is no such thing as “separate but equal.”
Since that strategy won’t work, the religious right has to change the Constitution.
We ain’t going to let them.
See you at Freddie’s ceremony…
The reason the religious right is trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is that their argument runs counter to both the First and 14th Amendments. If they cannot change the Constitution, then it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is ruled legal in the United States. Those opposed to gays and lesbians having legal marriage know they are on the wrong side of the Constitution and that is why they are desperate to change it.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is problematic for them. While all U.S. citizens are granted equal protection and application of the law, there is a loophole. In order for the government be allowedto ban same-sex marriage, opponents have to prove a rational argument for the government to make gays and lesbians a “special class” in order to deny them equal protection and rights that other citizens have.
They don’t have one.
Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity) they don’t get their “special class” injunction and they also run smack into problems with the First Amendment.
The 14th Amendment also knocks off the idea of those favoring “civil unions” for lesbian and gay couples, while hetero couples can get married. Brown v. Board of Education told Americans there is no such thing as “separate but equal.”
Since that strategy won’t work, the religious right has to change the Constitution.
We ain’t going to let them.
See you at Freddie’s ceremony…
The reason the religious right is trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is that their argument runs counter to both the First and 14th Amendments. If they cannot change the Constitution, then it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is ruled legal in the United States. Those opposed to gays and lesbians having legal marriage know they are on the wrong side of the Constitution and that is why they are desperate to change it.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is problematic for them. While all U.S. citizens are granted equal protection and application of the law, there is a loophole. In order for the government be allowedto ban same-sex marriage, opponents have to prove a rational argument for the government to make gays and lesbians a “special class” in order to deny them equal protection and rights that other citizens have.
They don’t have one.
Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity) they don’t get their “special class” injunction and they also run smack into problems with the First Amendment.
The 14th Amendment also knocks off the idea of those favoring “civil unions” for lesbian and gay couples, while hetero couples can get married. Brown v. Board of Education told Americans there is no such thing as “separate but equal.”
Since that strategy won’t work, the religious right has to change the Constitution.
We ain’t going to let them.
See you at Freddie’s ceremony…
“Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity)…”
I don’t know how you define “mainstream.” But when large majorities of voters in most states — including a majority in California — oppose gay marriage, it’s hard to argue that this is simply a question of the so-called religious right.
I think it is much more a long-standing, unfortunately mainstream prejudice against gays, built largely on religion, fear and cultural norms.
That said, cultures change over time. Americans under 30 are undoubtedly less homophobic (in general) than than counterparts over 50. Maybe in another generation or two, hatred of gays will be as passe as hatred of blacks now is. I think that is the general trend. But as long as Americans are so attracted to fundamentalist religion and all that goes along with it, prejudice against gays, including prejudice built into the law, will remain.
“Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity)…”
I don’t know how you define “mainstream.” But when large majorities of voters in most states — including a majority in California — oppose gay marriage, it’s hard to argue that this is simply a question of the so-called religious right.
I think it is much more a long-standing, unfortunately mainstream prejudice against gays, built largely on religion, fear and cultural norms.
That said, cultures change over time. Americans under 30 are undoubtedly less homophobic (in general) than than counterparts over 50. Maybe in another generation or two, hatred of gays will be as passe as hatred of blacks now is. I think that is the general trend. But as long as Americans are so attracted to fundamentalist religion and all that goes along with it, prejudice against gays, including prejudice built into the law, will remain.
“Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity)…”
I don’t know how you define “mainstream.” But when large majorities of voters in most states — including a majority in California — oppose gay marriage, it’s hard to argue that this is simply a question of the so-called religious right.
I think it is much more a long-standing, unfortunately mainstream prejudice against gays, built largely on religion, fear and cultural norms.
That said, cultures change over time. Americans under 30 are undoubtedly less homophobic (in general) than than counterparts over 50. Maybe in another generation or two, hatred of gays will be as passe as hatred of blacks now is. I think that is the general trend. But as long as Americans are so attracted to fundamentalist religion and all that goes along with it, prejudice against gays, including prejudice built into the law, will remain.
“Since their argument against same-sex marriage is strictly religious (and some would say not even shared by mainstream Christianity)…”
I don’t know how you define “mainstream.” But when large majorities of voters in most states — including a majority in California — oppose gay marriage, it’s hard to argue that this is simply a question of the so-called religious right.
I think it is much more a long-standing, unfortunately mainstream prejudice against gays, built largely on religion, fear and cultural norms.
That said, cultures change over time. Americans under 30 are undoubtedly less homophobic (in general) than than counterparts over 50. Maybe in another generation or two, hatred of gays will be as passe as hatred of blacks now is. I think that is the general trend. But as long as Americans are so attracted to fundamentalist religion and all that goes along with it, prejudice against gays, including prejudice built into the law, will remain.
It appears Freddie Oakley is abusing her office if your column correctly describes her certificate of inequality as containing her official title of Yolo County Clerk Recorder. She has no legal authority to issue certificates of inequality in her capacity as clerk recorder. While Freddie Oakley has the right to her personal political opinions, she has no right to express them in her official capacity in which she represents the county and serves the public in performing administrative rather than political duties. In doing so, Oakley also expresses arrogance and disrespect for the public which elected her. If she were not the Yolo County Clerk Recorder, her activities would be of scant interest to the public. While my political opinion is that all legal marriage should be replaced with express civil contracts and marriage should be reserved as a religious activity, I am offended. Although Yolo County tends to Soviet style single candidate elections, if anyone runs against her, that person will have my vote.
It appears Freddie Oakley is abusing her office if your column correctly describes her certificate of inequality as containing her official title of Yolo County Clerk Recorder. She has no legal authority to issue certificates of inequality in her capacity as clerk recorder. While Freddie Oakley has the right to her personal political opinions, she has no right to express them in her official capacity in which she represents the county and serves the public in performing administrative rather than political duties. In doing so, Oakley also expresses arrogance and disrespect for the public which elected her. If she were not the Yolo County Clerk Recorder, her activities would be of scant interest to the public. While my political opinion is that all legal marriage should be replaced with express civil contracts and marriage should be reserved as a religious activity, I am offended. Although Yolo County tends to Soviet style single candidate elections, if anyone runs against her, that person will have my vote.
It appears Freddie Oakley is abusing her office if your column correctly describes her certificate of inequality as containing her official title of Yolo County Clerk Recorder. She has no legal authority to issue certificates of inequality in her capacity as clerk recorder. While Freddie Oakley has the right to her personal political opinions, she has no right to express them in her official capacity in which she represents the county and serves the public in performing administrative rather than political duties. In doing so, Oakley also expresses arrogance and disrespect for the public which elected her. If she were not the Yolo County Clerk Recorder, her activities would be of scant interest to the public. While my political opinion is that all legal marriage should be replaced with express civil contracts and marriage should be reserved as a religious activity, I am offended. Although Yolo County tends to Soviet style single candidate elections, if anyone runs against her, that person will have my vote.
It appears Freddie Oakley is abusing her office if your column correctly describes her certificate of inequality as containing her official title of Yolo County Clerk Recorder. She has no legal authority to issue certificates of inequality in her capacity as clerk recorder. While Freddie Oakley has the right to her personal political opinions, she has no right to express them in her official capacity in which she represents the county and serves the public in performing administrative rather than political duties. In doing so, Oakley also expresses arrogance and disrespect for the public which elected her. If she were not the Yolo County Clerk Recorder, her activities would be of scant interest to the public. While my political opinion is that all legal marriage should be replaced with express civil contracts and marriage should be reserved as a religious activity, I am offended. Although Yolo County tends to Soviet style single candidate elections, if anyone runs against her, that person will have my vote.
There is nothing official on them. They were produced at her own expense.
There is nothing official on them. They were produced at her own expense.
There is nothing official on them. They were produced at her own expense.
There is nothing official on them. They were produced at her own expense.
I’m coming to this conversation late, but having recently met Mrs. Oakley this story bolsters my already high opinion of her. You will need a court order to keep me from campaigning for her in future elections.
I’m coming to this conversation late, but having recently met Mrs. Oakley this story bolsters my already high opinion of her. You will need a court order to keep me from campaigning for her in future elections.
I’m coming to this conversation late, but having recently met Mrs. Oakley this story bolsters my already high opinion of her. You will need a court order to keep me from campaigning for her in future elections.
I’m coming to this conversation late, but having recently met Mrs. Oakley this story bolsters my already high opinion of her. You will need a court order to keep me from campaigning for her in future elections.