Both these stories have, I think, the same moral: You have a right to be a bigot, but not on the taxpayer’s dime.
Catholic School Teacher Suddenly Fired After Parents Find Out About Her Wife Of 8 Years
Margie Winters, the director of religious education at Philadelphia’s Waldron Mercy Academy, was fired because a couple of students’ parents complained about Winters being gay and married. The school had known all along, but fired Winters anyway.
The firing could put the school in legal jeopardy. Lower Merion Township protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and its exemption for religious institutions does not include those that are “supported in whole or in part by government appropriations.” Over the past two years, Waldron Mercy has received more than $270,000 from Pennsylvania’s Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit, and students also receive financial aid through the state’s Education Improvement Tax Credit. If found in violation of the ordinance, the academy could be held liable for backpay, required to rehire Winters, and a penalty as high as $10,000, plus attorneys’ fees.
I hope the school get creamed, frankly. LGBT folks are taxpayers, too; Religious organizations shouldn’t take taxpayer money while expecting to be exempt from the law.
Interestingly, the archdiocese has denied having anything to do with this.
(By the way, there are many, many other examples of Christian organizations firing employees for being queer, or even just for favoring queer rights.)
As regular “Alas” readers know, I usually hesitate to call for people to be fired. But Casey Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, should absolutely be fired. Lifesitenews reports:
Governor Beshear ordered Davis to issue homosexual licenses, or else he must quit. “‘Issue marriage licenses or resign’ — those were the words,” Davis told reporters after meeting with Beshear. “I can’t quit…I have a mortgage to pay.”
Davis’ sense of entitlement is astounding.
Davis has every right to his stupid and bigoted beliefs. He has every right to state those beliefs on his own time. He has every right to quit his job rather than perform job duties he finds abhorant.
What he doesn’t have is the right to keep a job he’s refusing to do.
I agree that the clerk needs to either do his job or go.
The teacher is a little bit more complicated. I would agree that the government could stop supplying funding if the school fails to meet certain standards. However, a “director of religious education” who is openly contradicting the religious doctrine she is supposed to be teaching, may not be able to be effective in her role. I think it would come down to whether public knowledge of her relationship had undermined the attitudes of the students towards religious teachings, or whether it was just a couple of parents having an unreasonable whine. Given the school had known all along, I think it’s also important to know if the school made her employment conditional on her relationship not becoming detrimental to her or the schools reputation.
The Bible tells us you cannot serve two masters, God and Mammon. That school is about to get a practical application of that. And I agree that if a public official finds the.law at odds with their beliefs they either need to set their beliefs aside or quit. It’s actually the same lesson. Would that a majority of the Supreme Court had done the same.
So what happens if the principal decides an important part of the teacher’s job is effectively propagandize against gay marriage?
Well, they’re not actually supported financially by the Catholic Church – they’re an independent private school. And from what I’ve read, most of the parents so far are siding with Ms Winters.
So my guess is, if they decide to change the focus of the school to political proselytizing against gay marriage, the school will be out of business pretty soon.
But if you’re asking if they have a right to fire Winters because of their religious convictions, under current law as I understand it, they do. But they don’t have a right to do that AND be given taxpayer money.
Ron:
The 14th Amendment logic of the decision was both obvious and solid; pretending there was no constitutional logic to the decision, even if you don’t agree with it, is not very persuasive.
The anti-marriage-equality folks had literally years to develop a coherent, reasoned case for why lgb people should not have equal protection of the law when it comes to the civil laws governing marriage. They failed, and failed spectacularly. If there isn’t a single substantive argument to be made against civil recognition of same sex marriage, that’s a strong indication that the case against SSM is grounded in faith, not reason or law.
You’re welcome to your faith, of course, Ron. But why should you have the right to shove your faith down the throat of my mom’s synagogue (which performs and recognizes SSMs)? Do you really think that THEY should be treated as a lesser religion because they don’t share YOUR religious convictions? What you and other conservative Christians were asking for was not just the right to control your own churches, but the right to prevent other faiths from having their beliefs recognized equally by our common government.
There were two legally plausible lines of attack against gay marriage. One was to argue that this was a rational basis issue, then provide a rational basis. But that wasn’t practically plausible because tradition is a stupid rational basis and nothing else has both presented itself and held up to scrutiny. The alternative, to which conservatives constantly allude without realizing it, is to argue that Loving v Virginia was wrongfully decided. Conservatives seem to believe this, but they’re too gutless to admit it, and it’s pretty tough to get landmark constitutional precedents overturned without even admitting that they’re at issue.
The part of the post pertaining to Casey Davis follows a familiar pattern.
1. Cite a source relating to a matter you find interesting or which you think will interest your readers.
2. Post a summary of its content.
3. Draw a conclusion which you think follows from the facts in your summary: In this case, that Davis should be fired.
There’s nothing wrong with structuring a post like this. It’s a very common format. Probably the majority of my own posts take this form. Unfortunately you’ve also done something that is also very common, isn’t so cool, and would be dishonest if you had done it deliberately (which I don’t think you did). You’ve omited relevent facts from your summary that might lead a reasonable person to a different conclusion.
Here the omitted facts are that Davis has proposed that marriage licences in future be issued online. This would ensure that licences for both SSM and OSM be issued without discrimination in full complience with both the letter and spirit of the recent Supreme Court judgement, but would relieve him and other Clerks of the burden of issuing them. The Governer has refused.
So this is not just a story about an employee refusing to do his job on religious grounds. It is also a story about an employer refusing to implement a proposed accomodation.
I don’t think these additional facts render untenable your conclusion that Davis ought to be fired. You might argue that Davis’ proposed accomation isn’t reasonable, in that it would incur significant costs. You might argue that employers should not be expected to accomodate religious beliefs at all. You might even distinguish between religiously motivated bigotry, and non-bigoted religious beliefs, and argue that only the later should be accomodated.
These are all reasonable arguments, in my view. But I also think a reasonable person might disagree with all of them, and reach the conclusion, contrary to yours, that Davis’ proposed accomodation ought to be accepted.
In any case if, because of additional facts, you need additional arguments to reach your conclusion, you should make those arguments, not just omit the additional facts.
(1) I think county clerks in Kentucky are elected. So I don’t believe Casey Davis can be fired. He could be recalled; but the more likely outcome is that he gets sued, a local court orders him to comply, he refuses, and then we have a local legal stalemate as the courts try to figure out whether/how they can remove an elected official.
(2) The online-license proposal is ridiculous. The Kentucky governor said it best: “One of Mr. Davis’ duties as county court clerk is to issue marriage licenses, and the Supreme Court now says that the United States Constitution requires those marriage licenses to be issued regardless of gender. Mr. Davis’ own county attorney has advised him that his oath requires him to do so.”
This reminds me of nothing so much as the folks who argue that they’re opposed to SSM because, “the government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage at all!”
Like, yes … if there was an entire process and framework in place that does not now exist and that would accomplish the same ends, then him refusing to do his job might be more excusable. That doesn’t change that the framework isn’t in place, isn’t going to be in place soon, and certainly isn’t likely to be instituted just so this one dude can indulge his weird prejudices.
Whatever might or might not happen in the future, the situation right now is what it is. Refusing to serve a black dude breakfast in your diner because you think, “everyone should be able to order omelets online,” would be pretty fucking unacceptable too.
The point is not the merit of his “online marriage license” position (which, FTR, I think is a decently good idea), the point is that possible, pie-in-the-sky solutions are no substitute for constitutional requirements.
—Myca
Or he just goes to jail for contempt.
Funily enough, I do think the government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage at all.
But I don’t oppose the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. So long as the government is in that business, it should (morally, in my opinion) and must (legally, in the Supreme Court’s opinion) treat OSM and SSM the same.
That said, I’m not seeing the connection between the “shouldn’t be in the business” argument and the “do it online” argument. Can you explain?
Sure. They both use an unlikely-to-happen-soon-preferred-option and either/or thinking as a way to deny civil rights to gay people.
The government may or may not get out of the business of marriage. Probably not, but even if it does, it’s going to take a long time to make it happen.
This Kentucky county may or may not start offering marriage licenses online (I think it’s more likely than the government suddenly getting out of the marriage business), but even if it does, it’s going to take a long time to make it happen.
The either-or thinking comes in thinking that if you choose the ‘far-off’ goal, that means that denying LGBT folks their rights now is acceptable. The argument is essentially that the perfect is, and ought to be, the enemy of the good.
That’s horseshit because there’s no reason you can’t do both. As long as the government is in the marriage business (as you point out), SSM is only fair. Similarly, if marriage licenses were available online already, the clerk might have more of a point … but as long as they’re only available in person, it’s unreasonable to use the possible future change as a reason to deny same-sex couples their licenses now.
See also, “Who cares if women and LGBT folks serve in the military? The military should be defunded anyhow.” I point this out because it’s an argument you’re more likely to hear from the left … and it’s still horseshit.
—Myca
I didn’t think of that, Myca, but that’s a really good point.
Daran: As long as kinship is important legally, it’s necessary for governments to be able to recognize marriages when they happen. Which means that, one way or another, governments need to be in the marriage business.
As long as kinship is important legally, it will be necessary, or at least greatly desirable for adult people to have legal mechanisms for altering those relationships. Currently, the legal mechanism is marriage. It doesn’t have to be.
@Myca: I’ve never heard anybody use the “the government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage at all” argument as a way to campaign for marriage to be restricted to heterosexual couples.
It’s more often used as a reason why somebody isn’t actively campaigning for marriage equality.
Yeah, I figured that was the connection shortly after I asked the question. But I was going to bed, and thought it would be interesting to see your answer anyway.
Actually I think “it’s only fair” is a poor argument for doing anything. I agree it’s a better argument than any that SSM opponents have come up with. But there are much better arguements in favour.
But that was never my argument.
You see the governer could have come back and said to Davis “That’s a good idea, but until we get that up and running you’re still going to have to issue SSM licences by hand”. And then Davis might have replied “Nope, still not gonna do it”, in which case fire him, or he might have said “OK, I don’t like it, but I’ll accept it”.
We don’t know how Davis would have responded, because he was never offered the compromise.
Well I do think the US military should be defunded. But while I agree that this is a horseshit reason to oppose US women and LGBT having the same opportunity as US men do to blow up Afghan wedding parties, supporting them is not high on my list of gender equality priories.
I don’t understand why we should change that – or, rather, I don’t see why the change should be one of eliminating the marriage option, rather than adding other options if necessary.
In addition to what Myca said, Casey Davis says he considers it a violation of his religion to ever issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. The “compromise” you’re talking about – Davis issuing SSM licensing until online registration is in place – is one that you yourself made up, not one that Casey Davis offered. If we take Davis at his word, he would not find issuing even a single marriage license to a same-sex couple acceptable.
And it wouldn’t work, even if implemented. Even in the case of online licensing, all licensing needs to be available in the meatworld as well, with a human available to talk to. Otherwise it’s an unfair burden on people who don’t read, people who don’t read English, people who need assistance to navigate forms and websites, and people without internet access.
Furthermore, all online forms are still going to require someone from the clerk’s office to facilitate citizens filling out the forms by answering questions for those who don’t understand aspects of the online form, either in person or on the phone. And Davis has made clear, he considers it against his religion to facilitate the paperwork on a same-sex marriage.
Finally, you seem unaware that Casey Davis was offered a more viable compromise by the County Attorney – find a deputy clerk. Despite being offered a viable compromise, Davis didn’t change his public statements or advocacy at all.
Pete G:
That’s a really good point. So yeah, the basic premise of my post is wrong. :-)
I’m confused about the purported compromise. Even if the license was issued online, it’s still the clerk issuing it. Sure, it wouldn’t involve any physical act by the clerk, but he would still be officially issuing a license in his official capacity as county clerk. I don’t get how his religious beliefs are so particular that he can’t give out, accept back, and process a form, but he can be officially responsible for the acts of a computer system that does that on his behalf and which is considered to be constructively the same as him doing it.
About the “government should get out of the marriage business” line, I notice that many of the people who make this argument mean only the federal government. Clarence Thomas, for example, tripped over that very point in his dissent, though I’m not sure how many people noticed it. He had no objection to states interfering with civil marriage, only the federal government. From what I see, the people who make that recommendation have not thought very hard about what they’re recommending.
Amanda Marcotte, for example, pointed out that Rand Paul’s version would make it practically impossible for people who can’t afford lawyers to marry. Paul was arguing that the government should just enforce contracts, so people should just be allowed to make their own marriage contracts, which the government would then enforce. Now, this wouldn’t really mean that the government was out of the marriage business; it still would be dealing with marriage, though at a fictive remove. He also begged the question of state or local interference, and I wonder if he’d be okay with polygamous marriage contracts, or marriage contracts between siblings. He could probably dodge the question of child marriage by invoking age of consent laws that would prevent it — but not, for example, child betrothals where the contract is between the respective parents. And really, age of consent laws are just government interference in people’s private lives, aren’t they?
I’m not from the US, and I don’t consider the US to be the be-all and end-all of political discussion. But I will say this: if they mean that, then they are not arguing that “government should get out of the marriage business”. I am.
Well I can’t comment of Paul’s position, but mine would be that, yes, people should be allowed to make their own personal arrangement contracts, which the government would then enforce. People would also be free to call those arrangements “marriage” if they want to, or to call themselves “married” without any contract. The word would have no legal significance.
I don’t agree that it would be practically impossible for people to enter into a personal arrangement contract equivalent to today’s marriage without a lawyer. They can make legally valid wills without a lawyer, can’t they? I can pick up a pro-forma will for a few quid at a local stationers. Can’t you do the same in the US? (Well obviously, not for a few quid, but for a few bucks.)
Of course if your circumstances are particularly complex or the arrangement you desire departs significantly from the provision in a standard will, then you would be wise to engage a lawyer. The same would be true for personal arrangement contract.
They would be dealing with whatever personal arrangements people chose to enter into. If you want to call those arrangements “marriages”, then fine. You can call them what you like. The word would have no legal significance.
I repeat, I cannot comment on Paul’s views. I see no reason why I should not be able to, for example, contract with my sister to have joint parental rights and responsibilities for any children we might have (not with each other, obviously) over which either of us would otherwise have sole rights/responsibilities. And simultaniously contract with my best friend for him to be my next-of-kin in every other respect. I don’t want to marry either of them. In any case, he’s already married.
That’s not “dodging”. You cannot legally contract to engage in illegal activity.
Parental rights do not extend to making that kind of arrangement on behalf of their children. I mean, they can purport to betrothe them, just as I can purport to betrothe or even to marry you. (As I do now. I hereby marry you to Ampersand. I pronounce you man and printable symbol.) But the government will not recognise or enforce such arrangement.
Nor can children be pressured into making binding arrangements seemingly on their own behalf. Contracts with children are voidable by the child.
Yes they are. So what?
I was editing that, when the time to edit expired.
Contracts with (or between) underage children to have intercourse before the age of consent are unlawful, and therefore automatically void. I would advocate that contracts with underage children that promise any sexual or romantic intimacy, even in the future be automatically void, rather than voidable.
What you call the “marriage option” would certainly remain available. It just wouldn’t legally be called marriage, nor would it be legally favoured over other options. You would simply have a contract setting out explicitly what you want your personal arrangement to be. So long as traditonal marriage arrangements remain popular, stationers will be incentivised to sell pro-forma contracts with appropriate clauses, probably even using that word though it would have no legal significance.
Or you could roll your own, though the help of a lawyer would be advisable. Or you could make arrangements quite different from what we call marriage, such as the example between myself, my sister, and my best friend in my earlier comment.
I don’t think it would be the same (and if it would be the same, then what is the point of the change?). And, as I said, I don’t see any reason to make the change you call for.
Under the current system, anyone can independently contract in the way you describe. Absolutely nothing prevents that from happening in the status quo (at least, not in the US). So you’re not adding anything new – you’re just removing what is overwhelmingly the most popular, desired and widely understood option. That seems like a bad idea.
Marriage has the enormous advantage of being immediately understandable, widespread, and very difficult to legally question. If I had a same-sex spouse who got injured while traveling through Alabama, I’d much rather be married – a status that few hospital lawyers would question – than have an independently worked out arrangement that’s begging to be picked apart by lawyers.