effective gay rights technique that's not used...

[smileyeagle1021]

I was thinking early this morning, as I had nothing else to do. One of the effective forms of protest that the civil rights movement used to end discrimination was sit ins; wherein blacks would sit in the "whites only" section and refuse to leave, thus blocking whites from using that section.
Why don't we now then see gay couples doing similar at marriage license locations... go in and demand to be allowed to apply and refuse to leave or allow the clerk to assist anyone else until physically removed from the building?
Yes, it is extremely sucky customer, but I'd argue the clerk does deserve it... I have told employers in the past that I would rather be jobless than be forced to do anything I consider immoral... so that clerk simply working there, as far as I'm concerned either has no sense of morals to still be working there, or sees nothing wrong with denying gays the right to marry. I know that in the short run all that is accomplished is we increase the turn over rate in the marriage license offices as stress and burn out become more common with having to deal with justifiably sucky customers (i know at the call center it was much more stressful dealing with SCs who were right to be pissed off and sucky... mainly because I wanted to agree with them but couldn't) and make heterosexual couples wait in a longer line... but hopefully in the long run it will make a strong statement that, damnit, this is something we want and deserve too. And possibly even the bigots will give in, at the state the bigots will get tired of having to spend money on hiring and training new people, and the mormons religious people only getting the marriage license from the state for tax reasons because their sealing religious ceremony was the more important one anyway will get tired of always having to wait behind some queens refusing to leave. (the strike through only applies to Utah... in this state the religion is very specific... in other states generic religious right can be inserted in stead)

What say you, would this be an efficient way to get the point across as sit ins did so many years ago... or is this just a pipe dream
Actually, no it can't be just a pipe dream, at the very least the very people who deny gays their rights (because I guarantee you it was straights who did that... I doubt a single gay person donated to yes on H8) have to at the very least wait to enjoy theirs... seems like the least amount of retribution appropriate... especially in this state where there is greater than 50% odds that the heteros you're inconveniencing are bigots... those are odds I'll be willing to put money on.

[lordlundar]

Considering how your state reacts to gays, I would not doubt for a second that the police's "Reasonable effort" to remove the sit ins does equate to assault rifles and snipers.

Freedom of expression isn't exactly thriving in Utah.

[smileyeagle1021]

Freedom of expression isn't exactly thriving in Utah.

unless of course your speech happens to agree with Thomas S Monson's... in which case they will go to no ends to protect it

[Slytovhand]

I like it! If When ou're going to do it, be prepared (as LordLundar said) to have some rather violent ways to get removed. And for the local media to not be sympathetic.. in which case, you'd need to be contacting media stations interstate about it... and make a LOT of noise! And, if possible, have some friends take cameras with them...

but I'd argue the clerk does deserve it... I have told employers in the past that I would rather be jobless than be forced to do anything I consider immoral... so that clerk simply working there, as far as I'm concerned either has no sense of morals to still be working there, or sees nothing wrong with denying gays the right to marry.

Or thinks that the possible repercussions seriously aren't worth it, or has decided that since they live in a 'democratic' society, and the law makers of said democratic society have passed laws - they must therefore beholden to them.. (much the same way that Socrates chose to commit suicide as his punishment... it's a nice read!!). No, it's easy to just throw that at such people, but not entirely fair. After all, the US has a stack of soldiers in other countries... do they agree with the reason they got there or the government's decision at the time? Or, do they think the process that put said decision makers in power is more important??

[smileyeagle1021]

. After all, the US has a stack of soldiers in other countries... do they agree with the reason they got there or the government's decision at the time? Or, do they think the process that put said decision makers in power is more important??

The difference between the soldier and the clerk though is that the soldier is committed to a term of service. They can't simply say, "I don't agree with this war" and leave... the clerk however (at least in states like Nevada or Utah which are 'at-will' states) can leave any time he or she wants.

[Greenday]

The difference between the soldier and the clerk though is that the soldier is committed to a term of service. They can't simply say, "I don't agree with this war" and leave... the clerk however (at least in states like Nevada or Utah which are 'at-will' states) can leave any time he or she wants.

There's always the possibility that at the time, that was the only job they could get and with the economy in the toilet, they don't think they will be able to get a new job.

[DesignFox]

I hate to disillusion you smiley, but I DO know of one gay person who voted for Prop 8.

[smileyeagle1021]

I hate to disillusion you smiley, but I DO know of one gay person who voted for Prop 8.

I'm actually not that surprised... internalized homophobia is and will be for a long time, one of the biggest challenges for homosexuals to overcome. Hell, I severed ties with friends and family to join a so called church that promised with prayer I could solve my 'problem'... the idea that who I was, was who I was didn't even register.

Then again, I'm known for saying I support Prop 8 if and only if Prop 9 is "the state of california shall not recognize the marriage of a man and a woman" and Prop 10 is "any two consenting adults may be issued a civil union by the state, marriage will be left up to the churches"
Because in all honesty, I do have to agree with the pro-'family' (which have you noticed is only pro THEIR family)... marriage is sacred... which is why we shouldn't be having something as profane as the government getting involved... that said, if the government is involved it should be open to anyone (as it is there are churches that do recognize gay marriage).

[TheRoo]

I like the idea, but I wonder if perhaps it would be better received in a more moderate place than Utah. If one were to do this in Portland, Santa Fe or Minneapolis, the citizens applying for marriage licenses, the police, and the media would be more sympathetic to the cause. I know a fair amount of people who participate in civil resistance against the occupation of Iraq, and from what they tell me, it's a whole different experience in a more liberal city.

That being said, you work with what you have. I think it would be a very courageous thing to do anywhere, but especially in Utah.

[Nyoibo]

but I'd argue the clerk does deserve it... I have told employers in the past that I would rather be jobless than be forced to do anything I consider immoral... so that clerk simply working there, as far as I'm concerned either has no sense of morals to still be working there, or sees nothing wrong with denying gays the right to marry.

I disagree with this, I consider myself a moral person, but I'm not going to give up a job because I have to follow the law and I don't see why I should have to take shit for following the law.

[smileyeagle1021]

I disagree with this, I consider myself a moral person, but I'm not going to give up a job because I have to follow the law and I don't see why I should have to take shit for following the law.

I'm sorry, but if you are willing to follow a bad law, then you aren't a moral person... at one point in time it would be the law that you had to make sure blacks didn't use the 'whites only' drinking fountain... would you enforce that law? After all, it's just your job... it's not as if you actually believed black people were inferior...
I'm willing to bet that it would be extremely difficult for you (or any person) to answer that, because they know exactly where this argument leads. Either they say yes they would enforce that rule, something that today would be considered extremely racist, even if it is "just following the law" or it leads to the question why you would be willing not to enforce that law but are willing to enforce discriminatory laws that are still active today.

I have no problem with people who have a moderate opinion... I have many friends who disagree with gay marriage (though I will point out still believe there should be some way to provide equal protections), that said, if you work in a position at a job that requires you to hold one of the extremes, even if just while on the clock, you should expect to be treated accordingly.

[Nyoibo]

I'm sorry, but if you are willing to follow a bad law, then you aren't a moral person...

No, by your standards I'm not a moral person.

By other peoples definitions you're not a moral person either.

at one point in time it would be the law that you had to make sure blacks didn't use the 'whites only' drinking fountain... would you enforce that law? After all, it's just your job... it's not as if you actually believed black people were inferior...
I'm willing to bet that it would be extremely difficult for you (or any person) to answer that

No, easy answer, if it was the law and my job I'd enforce it, in my off time I might campaign against it, but I keep my personal and professional lives seperate and I do what has to be done.

It's the same as campaigning against war, I protested the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, but I will offer nothing but support for the veterans returning, they had a job to do and they did it, hating them will accomplish nothing.

[smileyeagle1021]

It's the same as campaigning against war, I protested the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, but I will offer nothing but support for the veterans returning, they had a job to do and they did it, hating them will accomplish nothing.

stretching the analogy (perhaps a bit too far)... I also disagree with the war in Iraq (though I did approve of Afghanistan), but I have the utmost respect for our soldiers... that said, don't expect too much sympathy from me if they were to ever complain about people shooting at them. They knew going into it that getting shot at was part of the job. Likewise, in this form of protest (or any SCish form of protest, be it sit-in or whatnot), when you work in an area that is one of the front lines of a political war you should know that you are going to get protesters. So while they may be otherwise moral and good people (I should point out that I believe morals are conditional, you can say someone has moral actions, and that they act morally more often than not, but so far in history only one person has been a perfectly moral individual), they should have known what they were getting into and be willing to accept the consequences of getting into it.

When I worked at the call center part of my job requirement was to lie to callers. For as long as I could get away with it I would not lie to callers, company rules be damned, and when I couldn't get away with being honest with callers any more, I knew damned well what people's reactions would be when they found out that they had been lied to, I knew they would be justified in that reaction, and I accepted that was my consequence for knowingly working for a company that practiced dishonest practices... and most importantly, I knew where the door was should I decide it wasn't worth it (which I ultimately did). So, before anyone asks, no, I'm not holding anyone to a standard higher than I hold myself to.

[powerboy]

I disagree with this, I consider myself a moral person, but I'm not going to give up a job because I have to follow the law and I don't see why I should have to take shit for following the law.

Same here. I don't see why I would have to take shit from someone, when I am doing my job. I guess smiley likes it, when someone comes into their place of work and just give them shit. To each their own, I guess

[smileyeagle1021]

Same here. I don't see why I would have to take shit from someone, when I am doing my job. I guess smiley likes it, when someone comes into their place of work and just give them shit. To each their own, I guess

I never said I liked it... I said it would accept it if I thought what I was doing was immoral or wrong... you'll notice that I also have never taken a job with the government... those two are related.

ETA, you people do realize your defense of the poor defenseless government workers is the Nuremberg defense, right? Those poor fucking Nazis who were only following orders... I won't reply any more... I'm sick of this bullshit "but they're just following orders" nonsense... after you get beaten as a child for who you are, then come back to me and tell me I should be civil to the bitch working for the government who supports those who beat me.

ETAA, and that poor white waitress being harrassed by those horrible negros who insisted on sitting in the white only section... didn't they know she was only doing her job.