Skip to main content

Morally Getting Out of Doing Your Job

Marriage equality became law in New York last week. When it takes effect next month, however, there is at least one place in the state where folks can expect some sparks. The 75-year-old town clerk  of Volney, NY, one Barbara MacEwan, says that she will refuse to sign her name to any marriage licenses for gay couples because it is against her "morals and [her] God." Says MacEwan:

“I’m not objecting to having it done here in the office, but I’m objecting to being forced to sign my name to something that is against my morals and my God,” said MacEwen, who has been town clerk for 18 years. “I don’t want to have to leave my position, and I still feel strongly about not wanting to sign, but I’m not sure if there’s another way around it.”

What is a public servant who doesn't want to serve all of the public to do? Poor thing. She had a good run until the law changed, allowing those uppity gay folk to marry one another. But in all seriousness, I don't have much sympathy for the plight of Ms. MacEwan. She was elected to serve the people of Volney, NY. She's not allowed to pick and choose, surely?

This reminds me of the news stories we hear about from time-to-time of pharmacists who refuse (or want to refuse) the 'morning after' pill to women who are within their legal rights to ask for it. The pharmacists try to make it about their personal, moral convictions, but I've always wondered: How far is this allowed to go? What if a liberal who works at a bookstore refuses to ring-up a book by a conservative pundit/politician because they morally disagree with them? Are they within their rights?

I dunno. I can wholly respect that folks have their principles and beliefs -- be they religious or secular -- and can appreciate that they don't want to go against them. But then I also believe in professionalism. People get paid to do jobs. Shouldn't that be enough? And, if it isn't, then at least someone who is elected by "the people," and whose salary is no doubt paid by taxpayer dollars (among them gay taxpayers) should be required to do her job. All of it.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yesterday's Restaurants

The local newspaper has a feature from one of Champaign-Urbana's most legendary restaurateur's, John Katsinas, on what his favorite area restaurants were that have now since closed (or will soon be closing).  It's a nice little read, and has made me stop and think about the restaurants that have come and gone that have left an indelible (and edible) impression on me throughout the years. Here we go....
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: Thir13en Ghosts

While not a scholar or even a purist, I am somewhat of a film snob. Not a big fan of remakes, specifically when the originals don't need updating. It is therefore an unusual position I find myself in, preferring a remake to an original, and by leaps and bounds. Let's take a look at today's feature...
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: The Woman In Black

Yesterday, we had a lady in white, and today we have.... The Woman In Black Just as Nosferatu was our oldest horror film to be reviewed this month, The Woman In Black is our most recent. Released earlier this year, the film stars Daniel Radcliffe in a more adult role than previously seen in his Harry Potter career. He plays a young lawyer whose wife died in childbirth, so he has been raising their son (mostly) on his own. With money tight, and his job on the line, the young attorney takes an assignment in a remote village, much to his dismay. The small, closed community Radcliffe's character finds himself in is apparently haunted by a woman dressed in all black. When she is seen, a child dies. She is seen quite a lot during the course of the film. The locals get edgy with the attorney, making him feel most unwelcome. And when he is doing his work, sorting through the papers of a deceased elderly woman, he discovers the secret of the woman in black. It doesn't
Post a Comment
Read more