Govt workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses -pope

[IDemo]

Source: Reuters

Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a "human right" to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience.

Speaking to reporters as he returned home from a 10-day trip to the United States and Cuba, Francis also repeated his condemnation of priests who had sexually abused children, saying the victims had been "crushed by evil".

Although the Argentine-born pontiff delved into some of the United States' thorniest political debates during his visit, he never specifically referred to a controversy over same-sex marriages, which the Church firmly opposes.

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licences to gays.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/28/pope-usa-idUSL5N11Y12Y20150928

[melm00se]

2. transcript of the question and answer

Question:

"Do you … support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example when issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

Answer

"I can't have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection … but yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."

"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, 'this right that has merit, this one does not.'"

While you can read into the Pontiff's answer as being one against gay marriage (after all the question specifically calls out gay marriage), his answer is not specifically aimed at gay marriage ("I can't have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection...&quot .

I'd be curious to see a transcript of the exchange rather than relying out journalists' interpretation of what he meant.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Yeah, after editing and interpreting all of his other statements until they could be called positive

now suddenly you want transcripts and better translations. He's opposed to marriage equality. He is opposed to all forms of contraception. He teaches that it is a sin to use a condom, so Africans don't and 100,000 a month die from AIDS. These are not questions, these are fact about the man.
This is DU's hero defending Kim Davis. Deal with the truth.

[melm00se]

9. i absolutely prefer the

primary source over a secondary source.

and so should you.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. I prefer clearly spoken language that is crafted to communicate rather than confound.

And so should you. And actually so should Francis, for Jesus said to 'let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, for anything further comes from evil'.


It is clear to me what he means, she has the right to keep her job and object to doing that job. If that's not what he means, it is up to him to clarify.

[lunatica]

30. Why should he clarify and perfectly clear statement?

You're the one reading evil intent into what he says, when he said no such thing.

[dbackjon]

32. So opposing Gay Rights ISN'T evil?

He has stated that very clearly in the past.

[lunatica]

39. He opposes gay marriage as the leader of the church

Otherwise he feels he has no business judging others. That's unfortunate, but it isn't "evil"

He also opposes women priests and high officials in the church, again as leader of the church, but that isn't "evil" either. It's just old fashioned and out of date and even stupid. But not evil.

[dbackjon]

42. Seriously? You don't think opposing equality is evil?

What a fucked up world you live in.


It is evil, and anyone that thinks otherwise can fuck off.

[Lychee2]

45. Brilliant repartee!

[For Freddie]

23. Conscientious Objection

He is very carefully saying he strongly supports conscientious objection. The logical consequences of that he understands on the world stage. He is not saying he would interfere in that process.
Saints for ever have the human right and duty to conscientious objection, along with the natural consequences. He did not say that Kimmy should keep her job. He said she has the right to be the doofus she is. In the old days she would be burned at the stake.Like St. Joan. I don't think Kimmy fully understands what she is in for in the long run.Not only were we witches burned but many a saint was lit up for conscientious objection.

The rest of it he is working on against terrible odds, entrenched power and corruption. Let's wait until he has left the body to rain down our full judgements. Until then I support him in the push he is making.He understands how the old edicts cause death, suffering and dying. He is making an effort to change that. This is a work in progress. A transformation of the most entrenched institution on earth. It will take time to make the very needed changes. He can't pull a Stalin and do a purge. It has to be carefully done to stick.

And NO I do not support unconditionally the ignorance and anachronistic old ways. Change comes very slowly on the planet.
Part of BEING change is the strength to keep going after the fires of youth leave our bodies. So the change can be grounded
and stay put. It is not less than changing the planet.

For now shifting away from the violence and callousness of the ancient Old Testament to LOVE is a big job. And he is aware denying condoms and the death and suffering that come out of that is NOT Love. This whole overhaul is going to take a spell.
Keep swinging we need the energy and impatience of youth.
And Lord Ganesha to remove obstacles. Om Shanti
For now he is pissing off Scalia and Amurikan "conservative catholics"... this is a GOOD thing in the right direction.

[yardwork]

6. Sounds like he is saying that they should resign.

Did he say anything about keeping their job if they can't, in good conscience, discharge their duties?

[Babel_17]

8. It looks like it was implicit

"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," Francis said.

"And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right," he added.

Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. "Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: 'This right has merit, this one does not.'"

Anyone can quit their job. The Pope is referring to the law protecting a conscientious objector.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Sounds like he's saying they shouldn't have to resign

Terry Moran, ABC News: Holy Father, thank you, thank you very much and thank you to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and we were told that you wanted to show your support for them and their case in the courts. And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?

Pope Francis: I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection. But, yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying 'this right that has merit, this one does not.' It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chancon Roland, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font – the baptismal font or the sword. And, they had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

(Editor’s note: He’s referring to provencal poem: Song of Roland in which Crusaders forced Muslims to choose between being baptized or being killed by the sword. The Pope says they were not allowed to choose conscientious objection)

Terry Moran, ABC News: Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis: It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/NewsBriefs/Default.aspx?rssGuid=full-transcript-of-pope-francis-inflight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome-60499/

[aceofblades]

3. The Govenrment isn't just some abstract being

It is composed of individuals, people. People who are charged with and whom have sworn an oath to provide equal protection under the law. Each and every government actor must be prepared to carry out their oath or they should cede their power. What if all of the "deputies" are sick or incapacitated? Justice delayed is justice denied.

If while exercising your "right" in the role of a government actor you impinge upon the constitutional rights of others, then that's a legal and logical problem. If one denies this principle in the abstract then to use a reducio ad absurdum, a person could say 'my religious doctrine requires that I kill you, you filthy atheist' and everyone could just make that determination for themselves and go through with it.

[RKP5637]

11. Exactly! What you said sums it up perfectly! "The Govenrment isn't just some abstract being ...

It is composed of individuals, people. People who are charged with and whom have sworn an oath to provide equal protection under the law."

[knixphan]

37. Zactly.

Each and every government actor must be prepared to carry out their oath.
Period.

[Sunlei]

5. conscientious objection. Then you don't take the job or you resign.

[Turbineguy]

7. I seem to recall

during the Vietnam War, Conscientious Objectors did not go in the Army, get paid and then announce their position.

[sarge43]

13. There were a few incidents when a troop would get religion.

They'd be handed the very long list of requirements a CO had to meet and told to get back to work.

She can't be compared to a honest CO including the fact that no CO ever got paid 80K a year

[Democat]

10. Government Employees Should Only Help People Of Their Own Religion

Why should a muslim government employee have to serve a christian customer or a christian government employee have to serve a muslim customer at all?

It's a violation of our rights.

[malthaussen]

12. Poorly-worded question

Of course they have the right to object, that's not in question. But they should not continue in the job if they do, and like other forms of civil disobedience, they have to be prepared to put up with any resulting inconvenience -- like, say, imprisonment.

-- Mal

[WestSeattle2]

14. What happened to military conscripts who were conscientious objectors to

Vietnam?

[christx30]

41. Many were arrested and imprisoned.

Others that did not want to go to Vietnam were forced to flee the country and live in Canada for the duration of the war, thinking they wouldn't ever get to come back. Thankfully, sanity prevailed in President Carter pardoning the draft dodgers. But in many political circles, they are still looked down upon to this very day.

[Geronimoe]

15. He does not seem to clarify anything

If a priest interprets the Bible as it it okay to molest children or sell them into slavery, can he do so as a fundamental human right? And of course the Pope knows Christianity is only one of many religions. Is it okay to fly planes into building because one believes they are on a holy jihad?

[For Freddie]

24. NO

The greatest law is LOVE. In the belief system, Jesus came to complete the Law of LOVE. Non-Violence. So in the hierarchy when one violates that Law, in ANY way then they are not serving the institution. And they must be released to law if they have committed a crime.This law has been ignored, violated and corrupted. Love is very troublesome for capitalism in all ways. So it has been pushed aside and degraded.

Out that comes all the crap we see large institutions rain down on the people. Until the revolution appears on the horizon then they either ignore the people entirely, or make some effort to create a more humane balance.

There is an awareness now in the higher realms that it is time for some balance . The only alternative is global chaos and revolution which is VERY bad for business and messy. So... we are seeing shifts toward the light.

For those raised in the past 30 years, living in chaos, the idea that maybe things can get better without revolution is difficult to see or accept. So everything is black and white ( as it were). Yet being old and long of tooth I DO see a glimmer here and there.
And I am inclined to give them a chance to see if they can transform things a bit before I go get my pitchfork and light up me torch.

Now granted, in the 60's&70's I was radical feminist Black Power Yogi Trotskyite. I never touched cocaine because I regarded it a plot to weaken the revolution. It did.I wanted Fierce Love and revolution. Now, not so much. I am more inclined to see how this drama plays out. The glimmers are surprising. So before I Break Bad and go for it I sit and watch. And as Bernie grows I have hope. And STILL, Love is all we need ( in our Hearts) and some bravery.So, NO priests do not get to be demons now without recourse. But it going to take a little more time. And patience.
A new generation and world view in charge to right it some.

If I were young now I would probably have a Kalishnakov and found a way to rid the planet of Duck Dynasty. For now I can buy the tee shirts at dollar stores and paint the boys up in drag and make up. It makes people laugh. And laughter and love feed us. Constant outrage exhausts us. I am too old and crafty to bite at every "outrage" and horror anymore. But the Donald looking like fat Elvis is tempting.

[snooper2]

16. go home pope do your fundieness over there please

now, back to our normal programming-

[V0ltairesGh0st]

17. I disagree with him on this...

But you have to admit on almost everything else, besides this and abortion , This guy is the one who could turn the religious world back towards progressive and rational change. No one is perfect... and for that I would ask we give him the benefit of the doubt.

[snooper2]

18. religious world is a dying I'd rather promote no mythology period

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. Religious world is dying? I don't think so.

You just saw multitudes expressing their adoration of the Pope here.

640 million agnostics out of a planetary population of 7 billion.

You were saying?

[NYC Liberal]

33. Besides two fundamental human rights issues that affect

literally billions of people?

The last pope had the exact same beliefs and stances on issues. He even wrote entire book criticizing capitalism, and another about the environment and climate change. But people here hate him and love this guy.

[niyad]

38. this person has done nothing positive for women, and had the brass to talk about the "COURAGE"

of the US bishops in dealing with the sexual abuse scandals in the church. so, no thank you, there is NO room for doubt. there is a reason we call him pope photo op. when he denies my right to exist and exercise my own autonomy, he can visit the devil.

[jwirr]

19. He is talking about conscientious objection but he has forgotten

to tell them that when anyone does that they should also expect to face the consequences. First of all if they do not do their job they get fired. They can also go to jail.

Thoreau understood that. Ghandi understood that. MLK understood that.

From the point of view of theology one may have the right to disobey government but one does not escape the consequences.

[L. Coyote]

22. Reuters is twisting what was said with that false headline. The text is a lie too.

The article is rewriting what was said to mean something very different.

If you are a conscientious objector, you are not forced into the infantry. If you oppose marriages, you are not forced to be a county clerk!

[Maedhros]

26. Of course - any individual has the right to refuse to do ANYTHING if it violates their ethics.

However, they do not have the option of avoiding the consequences for refusing. In the case of Kim Davis, being stripped of office.

Bottom line: public officials do not have the ability or right to make adherence to their personal ethics a qualification.

[daleanime]

28. +1

[daleanime]

27. On this....

he's wrong.

[lunatica]

29. Completely misleading about what the Pope actually said!

He said people have the right to be conscientious objectors. NOT! Repeat, NOT that they have a right to break Constitutional Right.

Not one single person has said She doesn't have the right to personally be a piece of criminal shit about her religion.

[NYC Liberal]

35. If there is a right to be a Conscientious Objector

then that means you must be free from consequences for objecting. Otherwise the term would be meaningless.

If conscientious objection is a "right" in this case, but you can be fired or jailed for exercising it -- and that is not considered infringing on the right -- then how is it a right?

[lunatica]

40. Actually she should be impeached.

I doubt he would be against that. It's the right of the voters to impeach elected officials

[NYC Liberal]

43. I think he would oppose it.

If being a "conscientious objector" as an officeholder is a right -- as Francis believes -- then it would be wrong to impeach someone for exercising that right.

It would make no sense to believe something is a "human right", and also believe you can (and/or should) be fired for exercising it.

[lunatica]

44. That's an interesting posit but when it comes to elections

I don't think human rights makes a person unimpeachable. Yes, it's the voters basically firing her but I don't think it violates her basic rights. And then there's the Constitution.

This is messy. If she violates the basic human rights of the gay community isn't that just as wrong in the Pope's view? And does it really violate her human rights if she's basically violating other's human rights first?

[NYC Liberal]

46. "isn't that just as wrong in the Pope's view?" -- No,

because he does not believe same-sex marriage is a right; he has said he believes same-sex marriage to be an evil Satanic plot. When Argentina was voting to legalize same-sex marriage, he said "This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan" and called opposition to it a "war of God."

Whatever he believes about treating us with "respect" is superceded when it comes to same-sex marriage, where he clearly believes all bets are off when it comes to opposing it because it is so evil.

[kestrel91316]

31. Dear Pope: I love ya, but NO THEY DON'T.

[pampango]

34. I doubt the far-right is going to be too quick to start quoting the Pope.

Giving him credibility in this way would weaken the right's position on a host of other issues. I think they would rather forget the Pope exists.

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. That is one thing you are grossly wrong about, Pope!

[Darb]

47. Ahhh, more opportunity to bash the Pope. Let's all pile on!!!!!!

I'm gonna pass. If someone wants to object BFD, let someone else perform the task at hand. Is that so difficult?

If they take it further and try to impose their beliefs into law, then they need to be held to account. WTF?

I just don't see reason to bash the Pope. It is a bad idea and doesn't help anything or anyone.