in fear of being forced to marry gays, local courts have decided to end courthouse weddings altogether! St. Johns and Putnam say they will continue to offer courthouse weddings, even if gay marriage becomes legal.
QuoteCouples who wanted to skip the pomp and circumstance of a wedding and get married at the Duval, Clay or Baker county courthouses will no longer have that option in the new year.
These counties' decision to end the long-standing tradition of courthouse wedding ceremonies is due, at least in part, to the continued debate over same-sex marriage in Florida against the backdrop of conservative Christianity. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle could rule any day and make gay marriage legal across the state.
If same-sex marriage is allowed, Duval Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell, Clay Clerk Tara Green and Baker Clerk Stacie Harvey will have no choice but to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But to avoid performing ceremonies for them, these clerks have decided to end all courthouse weddings.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2014-12-31/story/duval-clay-baker-counties-end-courthouse-weddings-avoid-marrying-gays
Flashback to the 1960s when the City was told to desegregate public pools and golf courses - they closed the pools and sold off the golf courses.
Maybe we will get lucky and they will sell the courthouses.
Quote
If same-sex marriage is allowed, Duval Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell, Clay Clerk Tara Green and Baker Clerk Stacie Harvey will have no choice but to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But to avoid performing ceremonies for them, these clerks have decided to end all courthouse weddings.
Disgusting!
first off, to be clear, I am very disappointed in the decision and I sincerely hope they reconsider.
That said (as noted above) the clerks will still issue marriage licenses...they just won't officiate any ceremonies.
I assume this is because gay marriage is against their religious beliefs....which brings up the whole separation of church and state thing.
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg)
Not surprising, but disappointing. No wonder my gay son wants to move away from the area. Welcome and protected by his national-bank employer, but institutional discrimination is allowed. Even a family-oriented business like Publix gets it. Seriously?
Not for much longer, and these backward thinking institutions will once again be on the wrong side of history. I keep telling my son, you can be happy here. Jacksonville is changing. And then this.
Hey "Leaders" - try leading for a change. Hard to have much respect for people who have to be sued into doing the right thing.
And there are those who wonder why Jax has a non-existent to highly negative reputation among Millennials. Why choose to deal with this place when there are so many others that don't need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?
Times are a-changing. Throughout history, the Christian church has been on the back side of a few efforts to gain freedoms, and on trends to societal changes. That being said, I have to admit that, especially in this city and area, wherein most seem rather conservative for the most part, some are having difficulty accepting the inevitable.
Although I know, in a rational sense, that freedom is the best route, as long as nobody gets hurt, I find myself .... well .... dragging my inner self to fully accepting the "trends" wherein male and male ... and female and female ... become partners; that is, partners exactly like the male/female partners familiar to me as a child.
However, I know that with time, I will feel fully comfortable with accepting the new societal trend. Even though my support to those who engage in same sex partnerships is overt, and I engage in no "secret" condemnations to anyone about the trend, I find myself still adjusting.
The apparent opposition from some -- although expected and understandable -- is inevitable. Those who appose, should know that in the end ... which will be sooner than later ... the overwhelming argument for honesty and freedom will win. After all, what is the harm of any kind of companionship and love? And why shouldn't those same-sex partnerships enjoy the same freedoms and benefits as enjoyed by the traditional or classic relationships?
I just read this news on FTU...I instantly thought of Stephan Dare, I figured he would be here ranting and raging out. I think I understand what the courts are doing. It doesn't just effect the gay & les crowd, but this decision hurts everyone. The take your ball and go home attitude. I say if they don't want to do it, they should not be bullied or forced to. I'm sure there are plenty of gay or les preachers and pastors that will perform it. Hopefully the Courts stick to their guns and keep everyone from getting married. Many are bitter saying comments like "this is why Jacksonville is behind" I don't agree with that Jacksonville is behind in many things, but I don't think the the anti gay agenda has anything to do with it. If I was gay id just go where my environment allows me to live how I want. This a lot of money the courthouse is leaving on the table.
This state is and has almost forever been run by right wing conservative republicans...put the blame where blame belongs..on the right wing christian republicans for this move..welcome to florida..when will the idiocy end?
Quote from: Coolyfett on January 01, 2015, 01:32:13 AM
I just read this news on FTU...I instantly thought of Stephan Dare, I figured he would be here ranting and raging out. I think I understand what the courts are doing. It doesn't just effect the gay & les crowd, but this decision hurts everyone. The take your ball and go home attitude. I say if they don't want to do it, they should not be bullied or forced to. I'm sure there are plenty of gay or les preachers and pastors that will perform it. Hopefully the Courts stick to their guns and keep everyone from getting married. Many are bitter saying comments like "this is why Jacksonville is behind" I don't agree with that Jacksonville is behind in many things, but I don't think the the anti gay agenda has anything to do with it. If I was gay id just go where my environment allows me to live how I want. This a lot of money the courthouse is leaving on the table.
Well that's sort of the neat thing about a democracy with an independent judiciary isn't it? People don't have to go live in some other environment, if something's unfair and arbitrary, then they can just change it and stay right where they are.
FWIW this is not going to play out well for the clerk, there is precedent on this issue. As one might imagine, Alabama Mississippi and the rest of the usual suspects did the same thing, shutting down schools, swimming pools and other public facilities when they had to let minorities in. They were forced by court order to provide the basic services, either by offering them reasonably, or by transporting the minority participants at the government's expense to an integrated facility to obtain those services. One thing you have to give our local officials credit for is having no grasp of how the games they decide to play actually work.
Personally I think the amount of taxpayer dollars wasted on this issue to date, both at the local level and by Bondi's office, is absurd. Especially when all these folks profess to be fiscal conservatives, it seems the money could be far better spent not jousting at windmills. It's obvious which way the tide is flowing, why fight it. As one example, legal aid and the public defenders' offices are habitually underfunded. But we're spending this kind of money on this instead?
^ very well said Chris
Conservatives? Christians? As it goes, it seems okay to have a conservative force within government and society, as it provides a measure of stability, a force for maintaining the status quo ... a benchmark against which the disgruntled can illustrate their positions ... against which the needs of minorities can be contrasted for all to see.
The problems might occur when, within the conservative population, there resides excessive pressures to hold strong the course of inaction to address increasingly stressful economic and societal issues ... to ignore the plight and the sufferings of a majority of those who, by whatever circumstances evolved within society, have become stuck in positions of economic need ... who've become dependent on the scraps of the system -- and who've found themselves without the freedom to choose their own lifestyle.
As societal wealth shifts increasingly to the conservative few as a consequence of an economic and tax mechanism designed by lobbyists and legislatures paid by wealthy conservatives, an increasing percentage of the population endures economic stress. Conservative inaction via obstruction of needed legislation allows more individuals, formerly entrenched in the middle class, to shift further toward borderline poverty.
But what about freedom ... about the recognition of the needs of individuals choosing to live out their lives without interference from legislation shaped by conservatives who traditionally find support in religious teachings? We might finally realize that while one might be a Christian, one should not feel qualified to control the lives of others by way of government legislation ... especially if the freedoms desired by any segment does absolutely no harm to society.
There seems to be a persistent coalition ... a happy family ... within the Conservative/Christian camp. The comforts offered by a favorable economic position, matched with an entrenched church / social association, provides the conservative with enough motivation to stubbornly stay the course. Why should the conservative wish change; that is, consideration of the misfortunes of the needy, or accommodation to the freedoms desired by many? Comfort, via a favorable economic position and a perceived rationalization of spiritual comfort, encourages the conservatives to engage only token moves to understand and resolve the evolved unfairness and inequalities in our society. Such is the power of comfort, both economic and spiritual, to allow inaction from those who possess it in abundance.
From a FaceBook event
Quote... January 5, 2015 the federal order staying the ruling that Florida's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional will expire. This will allow same-sex couples to go to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license beginning on the morning of January 6, 2015. The licenses issued will require a 3 day waiting period before the couple can get married. This means the first day the couple can be married is January 10, 2015. Notaries and clergy will be present in Hemming Park to marry couples who have validly issued licenses. We will have a DJ for dancing afterwards in a mass reception.
All same-sex couples who come to the park on this day with a validly issued license, issued on January 6, 2015, can participate in this event. We are organizing the event to perform mass and individual weddings on this day.
You are welcome to come to celebrate and support the newly weds! Newly Weds should bring $10.00 for the recording of their licenses at the clerk's office.
If, on the off chance it isn't legal that day, come anyway and we will have a peaceful demonstration against the prohibition...... Oh! and we will dance anyway!!!
The event is listed as being from 10am to 3:30pm on Saturday, January 10
RonChamblin: I appreciate and respect your honesty. I fully understand some people's hesitancy "accepting the new societal trend" when it is not what they are familiar with. I was ambivalent until my son came out several years ago. We suspected for years he was gay but when he finally came out, and his personal happiness forever improved, we immediately accepted ever aspect of who he is. We have learned of families who turned their backs on sons/daughters just because they are gay. How a parent can stop loving a child over something the child does not control is mind boggling.
Being gay is not a "trend" but a biological fact of life. Being gay is not a choice (when did you decide to be straight?). As the majority of society quickly learns and accepts this fact, gay rights will be as normal as all other civil rights. Sad that some people's moral compass lets them sit in judgment. I love my son and his partner and hope one day they can be married (if that's what they want). All the arguments for traditional marriage seem hollow with a 50%+ failure rate. These judgmental do-gooders should find a real problem to fix - like the epidemic of unwanted pregnancies that haunts society.
Thank you for being open-minded.
Thanks Edward. :)
Quote from: Edward on January 01, 2015, 09:47:57 AM
RonChamblin: I appreciate and respect your honesty. I fully understand some people's hesitancy "accepting the new societal trend" when it is not what they are familiar with. I was ambivalent until my son came out several years ago. We suspected for years he was gay but when he finally came out, and his personal happiness forever improved, we immediately accepted ever aspect of who he is. We have learned of families who turned their backs on sons/daughters just because they are gay. How a parent can stop loving a child over something the child does not control is mind boggling.
Being gay is not a "trend" but a biological fact of life. Being gay is not a choice (when did you decide to be straight?). As the majority of society quickly learns and accepts this fact, gay rights will be as normal as all other civil rights. Sad that some people's moral compass lets them sit in judgment. I love my son and his partner and hope one day they can be married (if that's what they want). All the arguments for traditional marriage seem hollow with a 50%+ failure rate. These judgmental do-gooders should find a real problem to fix - like the epidemic of unwanted pregnancies that haunts society.
Thank you for being open-minded.
Well put.
Early research in states that perform gay marriage shows the divorce rate for homosexual marriage is trending the same as heterosexuals.
This adds a whole new layer of meaning to the term "gay panic". It also reminds me very much of the same sort of panic that started after 1964.
Such a position by a city official is backward and misguided. I don't think a majority of residents would agree with this needless boldfaced stand against current law and trends. Wake up, it's 2015.
Quote from: spuwho on January 01, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
Early research in states that perform gay marriage shows the divorce rate for homosexual marriage is trending the same as heterosexuals.
^^ Not surprising, really. I guess marriage is always something you have to work at, regardless.
Again our "leaders" insist on being on the wrong side of history. Pathetic.
Stolen from someone's FaceBook post:
QuoteDear Clerk of Court employees:
Your boss blames you for ending weddings at the Courthouse. If people are upset at you, call you bigots or distribute your names, feel free to blame the guy elected.
Sorry about that.
Yours truly,
Jacksonville
Since Ronnie said that he checked with his staff, and none of them are "comfortable" performing same-sex weddings. Maybe he should ask them if they are comfortable performing inter-racial weddings? Oh, wait, the courts decided that one 50 years ago. There are some parts of my job I don't like - should I ask our CEO if we can just stop doing those things?
^ yes :)
Another embarrassing moment for Mayberry RFD
Quote from: pierre on January 02, 2015, 10:01:34 AM
Another embarrassing moment for Mayberry RFD
Actually, I don't know about Mayberry; Andy and Barney would have probably allowed it. They were quite progressive :-)
It's stuff like this and the Clay Yarborough nonsense that make me genuinely question whether Jacksonville is the right place to raise my daughter.
An absolute embarrassment.
Quote from: spuwho on January 01, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
Early research in states that perform gay marriage shows the divorce rate for homosexual marriage is trending the same as heterosexuals.
And...?
QuoteFamily division Circuit Court Judge Linda McCallum said absent the availability of Duval County clerks to perform marriages, judges will step in.
"It is not something that needs to stop," she said.
Places could be found to perform the services, she said, and judges are sworn to uphold the law. She said she will perform marriages for anyone who gets a license and believes there is support among other judges as well.
"I'd be happy to do it," she said.
Kudos to Judge Linda McCallum!
Also, when does Fussell come up for reelection - he won clerk position in a very tight race.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on January 02, 2015, 02:00:53 PM
QuoteFamily division Circuit Court Judge Linda McCallum said absent the availability of Duval County clerks to perform marriages, judges will step in.
"It is not something that needs to stop," she said.
Places could be found to perform the services, she said, and judges are sworn to uphold the law. She said she will perform marriages for anyone who gets a license and believes there is support among other judges as well.
"I'd be happy to do it," she said.
Kudos to Judge Linda McCallum!
Also, when does Fussell come up for reelection - he won clerk position in a very tight race.
Good for her. This is such a lame attempt to prevent the inevitable. Too bad the Clerk of Courts lets his personal beliefs interfere with the function of our city government in such a blatant way.
I hope MetroJax stays on top of this story and lets us know if the Honorable McCallum follows through.
CoC will be on the 2016 ballot.
Can the judges use the chapel in the Court House when they perform marriage services?
Quote from: KenFSU on January 02, 2015, 11:01:39 AM
It's stuff like this and the Clay Yarborough nonsense that make me genuinely question whether Jacksonville is the right place to raise my daughter.
An absolute embarrassment.
You should question raising your child here..if you want a well rounded modern child..leave now.
So let's flesh out the logic of this refusal to marry gays on another level...
It's my understanding that certain county clerks feel that marriage between same-sex couples totally goes against their faith in God and because of that they would much rather not have those ceremonies now ordered by some evil sin-mongering judge performed in their county courthouses. So their solution to keep themselves in good light with their God and their fellow congregates as to not encourage these types of "unholy" unions is to equally dis-courage those marriages which these same clerks and their fellow parishioners approve of and promote as spiritually pleasing by banning those as well? WTF...Do these so-called God-fearing clerks realize how ultimately unproductive it is for not allowing any marriages because some they object to when they damn well know the vast majority of them over time, after all the same-sex marriage hoopla fades, would be the traditional opposite-sex type they cherish?
This is just another case of religious sanctimoniousness trumping reason: No one ends up any holier because of this "bold" stance against same-sex couples. Think about it...short of the clerk, in a fit of righteous indignation flagrantly ignoring federal state and county anti-discrimination laws, starts stamping select bible verses or drawing frowney faces on the marriage license of same-sex couples; not allowing an activity that they feel God looks down upon to the detriment of an activity they'd think God would celebrate and encourage more of becomes a spirituality push, IMHO.
So cheers, JAX for making national news again for all the wrong reasons. Another lesson to learn from (or not) the perils of not-fully thought out actions intended to serve God turn instead to acts of self-serving.
And the story hit national outlets and makes Jacksonville look bad again.
^Unfortunately, I think we all knew deep down inside that anything involving Jacksonville and something like this would hit the national outlets. To the national guys, if Detroit is the poster child for urban decay and crime, we're the poster child for big city backwardness.
Must we ALWAYS be doomed to repeat history? The below is from "Deadly Legacy of Swimming Pool Discrimination", Jeff Wiltse.
"When a federal judge ordered Montgomery, West Virginia, to open its municipal pool to black residents in 1948, city officials drained the pool and locked the gates. For fourteen years, the empty pool stood as a conspicuous reminder that racial prejudice was preventing blacks and whites in Montgomery from being able to swim.[1] Birmingham, Alabama, closed all eight of its municipal pools in 1962 after a federal judge issued a desegregation order.[2] Canton, Mississippi, closed its two public swimming pools in 1965 in response to integration efforts by local black residents. For the next 23 years, Canton operated no public pools. It finally re-opened one of the pools in 1988. "It was a long time coming," commented Alderman Jewel Williams. "It was something we had to do and was needed. We had pools, and they were closed. That should never have happened."[3] But it did happen, and it happened in cities throughout the South during the 1950s and 1960s".[4]
[1] Wiltse, Contested Waters, 165.
[2] "Birmingham Keeps Parks Closed, Defying Court," Chicago Defender, March 17, 1962, 2.
[3] "Pool Reopened after 23 Years," Los Angeles Sentinel, July 7, 1988, A2.
[4] "Close 4 Fla. Pools Over Race Issue," Chicago Defender, June 13, 1961, 3; "Close Pool to Avoid Integration," Chicago Defender, July 6, 1961, 19; "Integration Faces Hardest Going in Recreation Public Facilities," Chicago Defender, August 31, 1963, 9; "Jackson Case
Ruling," Chicago Defender, June 17, 1971, 17.
We need to let Fussel, et al know they need to change their position or 1) they wont have a job, and 2) in the future they are going to end up as footnotes in a textbook.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on January 03, 2015, 06:20:29 AM
Must we ALWAYS be doomed to repeat history? The below is from "Deadly Legacy of Swimming Pool Discrimination", Jeff Wiltse.
"When a federal judge ordered Montgomery, West Virginia, to open its municipal pool to black residents in 1948, city officials drained the pool and locked the gates. For fourteen years, the empty pool stood as a conspicuous reminder that racial prejudice was preventing blacks and whites in Montgomery from being able to swim.[1] Birmingham, Alabama, closed all eight of its municipal pools in 1962 after a federal judge issued a desegregation order.[2] Canton, Mississippi, closed its two public swimming pools in 1965 in response to integration efforts by local black residents. For the next 23 years, Canton operated no public pools. It finally re-opened one of the pools in 1988. "It was a long time coming," commented Alderman Jewel Williams. "It was something we had to do and was needed. We had pools, and they were closed. That should never have happened."[3] But it did happen, and it happened in cities throughout the South during the 1950s and 1960s".[4]
[1] Wiltse, Contested Waters, 165.
[2] "Birmingham Keeps Parks Closed, Defying Court," Chicago Defender, March 17, 1962, 2.
[3] "Pool Reopened after 23 Years," Los Angeles Sentinel, July 7, 1988, A2.
[4] "Close 4 Fla. Pools Over Race Issue," Chicago Defender, June 13, 1961, 3; "Close Pool to Avoid Integration," Chicago Defender, July 6, 1961, 19; "Integration Faces Hardest Going in Recreation Public Facilities," Chicago Defender, August 31, 1963, 9; "Jackson Case
Ruling," Chicago Defender, June 17, 1971, 17.
We need to let Fussel, et al know they need to change their position or 1) they wont have a job, and 2) in the future they are going to end up as footnotes in a textbook.
yes..in jax you are doomed..welcome to the racist homophobic center of America..leave while you can.
Quote from: Rob68 on January 02, 2015, 07:10:10 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on January 02, 2015, 11:01:39 AM
It's stuff like this and the Clay Yarborough nonsense that make me genuinely question whether Jacksonville is the right place to raise my daughter.
An absolute embarrassment.
You should question raising your child here..if you want a well rounded modern child..leave now.
I would not be surprised if Clay called his buddy Ronnie up on the phone to suggest that he halt weddings performed by his office. I'm not saying he did, I'm just saying I would not be surprised if he did.
T-U today reports that the wedding "arbor space" at the courthouse will be dismantled and used as a waiting room.
So Fussell's inspiration for mass Valentine's Day weddings have been destroyed. No more donated cupcakes or free photos.
Quotehttp://news.wjct.org/post/local-couples-tie-knot-jax-courthouse-mass-marriage
Fussell explained why he was inspired to start the tradition.
"This beautiful building and the backdrop of this along with the staff up here thought it would be a really neat thing to do so they put it together," he said.
Following the ceremony, the newlyweds attended a reception that included cupcakes donated by The Cake Shop of San Jose, and free wedding photos.
I view courthouse weddings as a service the city provides just like any other city service we pay for with our taxes. City services generally enhance the quality of life for ALL citizens of Jacksonville. I am deeply concerned when religion becomes the foundation of reason for providing or not providing city services. A city office such as the clerk of courts that is so blatantly Christian obviously does not represent a diverse city.
This is the second instance in a month where Christianity has been used as a bully pulpit in Jacksonville. Yet, all we hear about from Christians is how persecuted they are in America. Sounds to me like they kind of deserve the negative labels they are given.
Can the County Clerk be removed by a recall? Not that it would work, just curious.
Quote from: brainstormer on January 03, 2015, 02:25:48 PM
I view courthouse weddings as a service the city provides just like any other city service we pay for with our taxes. City services generally enhance the quality of life for ALL citizens of Jacksonville. I am deeply concerned when religion becomes the foundation of reason for providing or not providing city services. A city office such as the clerk of courts that is so blatantly Christian obviously does not represent a diverse city.
This is the second instance in a month where Christianity has been used as a bully pulpit in Jacksonville. Yet, all we hear about from Christians is how persecuted they are in America. Sounds to me like they kind of deserve the negative labels they are given.
Events like those make it embarrassing to be a native of this city.
While their reason for ending courthouse weddings is small minded and stupid, there is one good thing to come out of this-less government doing things. They should have never been in this business to begin with.
Maybe since they're doing less, we can save some money and lay some people off.
>:( As a taxpayer I demand my money back! Fussel and his cronies must go. If personal beliefs interfere with the ability to do a job then find a different job. I see no differences between this type of thinking and Sharia Law.
coredumped has a valid financial point for a city that has budget issues. In 2013, the newspaper reported that there were 1,911 marriages at the courthouse. At $30 a marriage that is $57,330 in lost revenue for the clerk of courts office. That is the salary/benefits of one clerk. So will Fussell be asking for additional money for his office or will he be letting one clerk go? If he can easily absorb the lost revenue, then obviously the office could stand to do some budget trimming.
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2015, 11:28:06 AM
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/141/entry
Since the earliest English settlers arrived in Carolina, government officials have, to some degree, regulated marriages. In the colony, such regulation was necessary because the process of inheritance depended on the legitimacy of children. In addition, the church and the state had an interest in preventing bigamous marriages or marriages that fell within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (kinship). Under English law, which prevailed throughout the Lords Proprietors' domain, only Church of England ministers could legally perform marriage rites. But few ministered in the rough hinterland. Accordingly, the Assembly in Albemarle, in its 1669-1670 session, passed An Act Concerning Marriages, which provided that, in the absence of a minister, a couple could wed in the presence of "three or fower of their Neighbors" before the governor or a councilor. After "declareing that they do joyne together in the holy state of Wedlock And doe accept one the other for man and wife," they received a certificate and the marriage was registered in the Secretary's office.
In 1715, intending to "prevent Illegal and Unlawfull Marriages," the Lords Proprietors, with the advice and consent of the General Assembly, again acknowledged that only the established church, The Church of England, should perform marriages. Nevertheless, the law empowered magistrates "to join persons together in Marriage in such parishes where no Minister shall be resident." Before marrying, the future bride and groom had to purchase a license or have the county clerk publish banns (public announcements) in the county where the bride lived. The parallel authority of the Church of England and the magistrate to solemnize marriages continued even after North Carolina became a Crown Colony in 1729.
In 1741 the state increased its control over marriages by enacting provisions for issuing marriage licenses or publishing banns. To "prevent clandestine and Unlawful Marriages," the General Assembly at Edenton gave Justices of the Peace the authority to solemnize marriages in any parish that had no resident minister or in a county with a minister, with his consent. To ensure that there was no impediment to the marriage, such as a previous spouse, too close of a kin relationship between the couple, or a lack of legal competency, ministers read banns in the future bride's congregation for three consecutive Sundays and later certified that no one had objected to the impending marriage. If the future bridegroom preferred to obtain a license, the clerk of the bride's county of residence could issue the license, after securing from the bridegroom a bond for 500 pounds. The same Act also prohibited interracial marriages.
As the number of non-Anglicans increasingly migrated to North Carolina, they demanded to have their own ministers performing marriage ceremonies. Although the governors and the Assembly did not mind denominational and "dissenting" ministers solemnizing marriages--as long as proper fees were paid and collected--the Church of England strongly defended its monopoly. As late as 1771, Reverend Theodorus S. Drage reported from his parish in Salisbury that there were "Irish Dissenters" and other "motly mixtures" who predominated in local government and wanted to "publish [banns] and marry by their own clergy, an act directly leveled at the constitution, contrary to the original and subsequent charters."
Successive governors wanted to ensure that proper fees were paid, regardless who married the consenting couples. In 1771, in his message to the lower house of the Assembly, Governor William Tryon complained bitterly that county clerks used their own marriage certificates, rather than the marriage license forms issued by the Governor's Office. The Governor was thus "deprived of [his] equitable emoluments...," as the Clerks put the collected fees into county coffers, or in a few cases, pocketed the money. Tryon told the Assembly to enact laws so that "the Clerks ... may be absolutely prohibited from issuing any Marriage Licenses, and any Magistrate [be prohibited] from marrying any parties" except with license forms issued by the Governor's Secretary (and proper fees collected). Indeed, the same year, Governor Tryon transmitted to London various Acts passed by the Assembly, including "An Act to regulate the issuing of Marriage Licenses." The Governor called the proposed legislation "most salutary," because it might "better secure . . . the fees due to the Governor."
After the American Revolution, couples could choose a clergyman or a Justice of the Peace to solemnize their marriage. The laws of 1778 provided that, in addition to the Anglican clergy, "all regular ministers of the Gospel of every Denomination," as well as Justices of the Peace were "empowered to celebrate Matrimony..." By the 1840s, it was settled law that it was "an essential requisite of a legal marriage that it should either be celebrated by some person in a sacred office, or be entered into before someone in a public station and judicial trust." In either event, until 1868 couples were required to publish banns in a church or post a bond to be filed with the county clerk before the marriage was solemnized. North Carolina historian William S. Powell estimates that "two-thirds of all marriages prior to 1868 were by banns, [for] they were quicker and cheaper than licenses." Banns recorded in the churches were not public records. On the other hand, posted bonds were public records and thus became part of a county's permanent records. Unless lost due to fire or flood, such records, including Marriage Bonds, were transferred to the State Archives.
Despite all attempts by the state and by the clergy to regulate and register marriages, an untold and inestimable number reportedly ignored the letter of the law. Ministers often solemnized marriages without licenses according to the customs of their denomination, but magistrates performed marriages on an oral assurance that banns had been read; and in rural areas, where neither minister nor magistrate was easily reached, people entered into marriages following their needs and traditions.
Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the North Carolina General Assembly passed An Act Concerning Negroes and Persons of Color or of Mixed Blood (1866) to validate the marriages of former slaves. Marriages that had taken place before emancipation could be registered by any couple who appeared before a Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Court and made a statement indicating when they began cohabitating as husband and wife. An 1868 court reform act did away with marriage bonds and transferred the authority to issue marriage licenses to the Registers of Deeds.
The license became the only official public record of marriage. The Registers of Deeds kept consistently good books, and the recording of marriages became widespread. In addition to such records maintained in every county, since 1962, the state's Vital Records Section has kept a statewide register of marriages. Fifteen years later, a new act validated all interracial marriages "declared void by statute or a court of competent jurisdiction prior to March 24, 1977."
The state government has regulated the solemnization of marriages from North Carolina's earliest days, and although the law continues to prohibit any "minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage" from performing a ceremony without a license issued by the Register of Deeds, a marriage ceremony conducted without a license is nevertheless a valid marriage. Failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding marriage licenses subjects the county officer or church minister to a misdemeanor penalty of $200.00, but the marriage remains valid and "good for every intent and purpose." On the other hand, marriages simply by consent of the parties, or performed by unauthorized persons, or between kin within prohibited degrees of kinship, or between persons of the same gender, are void.
Sources:
Debbi Blake, ed., "Vital Records in the North Carolina State Archives, Part Two: Marriage Records" Wake Treasures: Wake County Genealogical Society Journal (Winter-Spring, 2005); Walter Clark, ed., The State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XXIII, Vol XXIV,, Vol. XXV (Goldsboro, 1906; reprint 1994); General Statutes of North Carolina, Annotated, Volume 8 (Charlottesville, 2003); Guion Griffis Johnson, "Courtship and Marriage Customs in Ante-Bellum North Carolina," The North Carolina Historical Review XI (October 1931); Helen Leary, ed., "Marriage, Divorce, and Vital Records," North Carolina Research (Raleigh, 1996); William S. Powell, "Marriage," Encyclopedia of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, 2006); Public Laws of the State of North Carolina Passed by the General Assembly at the session of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866); William L. Saunders, ed., The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vol. II – 1713 to 1738, Vol.VIII – 1769 to 1771 (Raleigh, 1890; reprint 1993); Baretta McGhee White, Somebody Knows My Name: Marriages of Freed People in North Carolina, County by County (Athens, 1995).
By Lazar "Larry" Odzak, State Archives, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Excellent historical recap.
As far as budget impacts only the clerk can say. He may have been short staffed on office work because they were to tied up in performing civil ceremonies. By stopping them it frees up a headcount for more office work. The revenue lost would then be a wash.
In this video I expressed my outrage and thoughts about what is happening http://youtu.be/ne2r0JhVN1A
Add this to the long list of reasons why people should be more active and engaged voters. There are a number of candidates for the March elections who are looking to move Jacksonville forward and who need the support of people who are outraged by decisions like this one.
^ Agree. Engaged voters really count. However, I would like to point out a big flaw in our current voting situation - campaigns which promote populist views paid for by unprecedented floods of money and the lack of critical questioning to reveal the bias which causes an elected official to say that his personal religious views supersede the law and the appearance of fairness.
I think the flaw you are pointing out lies more with the voters than the campaigns. Politicians have learned to drum up big money and blanket people with sound bites because that is the extent to which people are willing to listen, and because it is a strategy that has been working. Personally I have decided not to run my campaign that way because I think it's time we start doing things differently, and that's why I'm taking no money at all. If we all started researching the candidates and voting for the one most qualified rather than the one whose name we hear most often, then politicians would start campaigning differently, we'd have better representation, and we wouldn't have situations where our city is embarrassed nationally on an almost monthly basis.
Admirable. However, what do you intend to say that will get you the most votes - will you provide those background bytes about yourself that may reveal you as a person of integrity knowing that to many voters it will be a reason to chose the other guy?
And don't be so quick to blame voters, must-win candidates who view themselves as noble saviors of the failing system plus a flaccid media unwilling to ask tough questions should share the blame.
I agree, most of the media is not in the business of asking tough questions any more, and it's true that many politicians are just in it to stay employed. They share the blame for sure, but as voters we let them get away with it, either because it's easier that way or because we simply don't care enough.
As for my own campaign, I don't plan to sit on the fence. I see the inability of our leaders to choose a side or stand up for an issue as getting in the way of progress. Too many politicians are scared to give their true opinion on an issue for fear of losing votes. For me, winning isn't as much about getting elected as it is about making Jacksonville a better place. While I think I can do much more for the city if I were in office, I'm not going to compromise who I am or what I think is right in order to get there.
Jacksonville attorney marrying gay couples for freeQuoteIn response to Duval County ending courthouse weddings to, in part, avoid a ruling that made gay marriage legal statewide, a local attorney is offering to provide marriage services to same-sex couples for free. Rick Block, a personal injury attorney in Jacksonville, will perform marriage services in his office and pay for license fees if couples can't afford it. "I feel complete and utter disgust with members of my profession in my hometown," Block said. "Rather than opening the courthouse, in which we built a chapel, to all citizens, we'll just close it down altogether."
Block said closing down the courthouse isn't just discriminatory towards gay couples, but towards heterosexual couples. "People go to the courthouse not because they choose to, but because they can't afford any other venue," Block said. More than discriminating against couples who can't afford the cost of a marriage ceremony, which averages more than $23,000 in Duval, Block said the action will discourage members of the gay community and businesses who are inclusive to move into the area. It will also likely motivate some members of the LGBT community to move out of Jacksonville, according to Block, who says he can't wait for his son, who is gay, to move out of the city. "It makes Jacksonville look like a bigoted place and it serves no purpose," Block said. Block will begin marrying couples at his office on Tuesday. The ban on gay marriage is set to expire Monday night.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/01/05/local-attorney-marrying-gay-couples-for-free.html
^Great!
Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.
We celebrate diversity.
Oh geez, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married,pretty simple.
Have you ever seen someone eat a food you don't like? Shall we ban that food?
The solution to all of this is to get the government OUT of marriage all together. A license is required for permission to do something, we shouldn't have to ask the government permission to get married.
But, I'm glad all citizens of this state are allowed to marry, anything else is discrimination.
No one should have to get a government permission slip for marriage. Laws should treat all adults the same regardless of their family arrangement.
Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 05, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1PGldbbZOls/TIcNeBoyZjI/AAAAAAAAFFs/sM7_tTlmdHY/s400/sarah_palin_religious_nut.jpg)
Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 05, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.
A little quote - you should know the book it's from:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
Just out of curiousity: What exactly is it that makes you believe marriage should (or can) only be between a man and a woman. There must be a particular reason for you to believe this, right ?
Been waiting since Desmond Tutu's comments for a worldwide media outlet to cover Jacksonviile. Yeah, we did it...and with a consistent message!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/us/same-sex-couples-in-florida-wed-in-late-night-ceremonies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 05, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.
From my experience with people who have a hard time with same-sex couples and gay marriage, their outrage is really manifested on more systemic, generational, and societal issues that cannot be explained in a tweet or a simple one-paragraph blog post. Unlike many of my gay marriage sympathetic friends who dismiss these haters as simply ignorant, homophobic, and "not with it", I encourage a greater discussion about these deeper concerns by equality opponents. The more you look into what's really troubling gay marriage foes, it becomes less and less about gay marriage itself: It's an easy scapegoat and visible target for their frustrations, but their true concerns didn't start with the advent of marriage equality nor will it end with it's eradication.
What I really want to address is the importance of this day in Florida. All the naysayers make points like "this will probably lead to the legalization of..." or "there will probably be consequences for these type of unions..." etc. Let's discuss some other "probablies" many gay couples had to deal with: They could probably come to a state like mine where their marriage would be recognized and come back to Florida where said marriage probably wouldn't be valid therefore they probably would be at a big disadvantage concerning child custody issues because they would probably not be eligible for the same medical and insurance coverage traditional married couples receive. And god forbid if something catastrophic happened to a member of this same couple where the spouse probably wouldn't be initially covered under their partners disability benefits and would probably have to go through a myriad of legal hoops to get them plus the spouse would probably have to go through a long and harangued legal fight over long-term care they had mutually agreed upon and upon spouse's passing will probably be saddled with more expenses since the surviving spouse would probably not qualify for certain property and estate tax exemptions recognized married couples could take advantage of.
Although there are still many hurdles legally and socially on the way to true marriage equality, I am elated that as of today in the State of Florida, the "probablies" that may have burdened and stigmatized your same-sex marriage has become a full-blown reality.
God Bless all Florida marriages today and forever more...and
KEEP ON CELEBRATING!!!
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on January 06, 2015, 02:36:52 PM
Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 05, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.
From my experience with people who have a hard time with same-sex couples and gay marriage, their outrage is really manifested on more systemic, generational, and societal issues that cannot be explained in a tweet or a simple one-paragraph blog post.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Plus, the issue is that people are not allowed to live their lives as they wish because others don't feel good about it but cannot simply (really) explain why (or don't want to because their reasons are simply stupid) - is this acceptable in any way ?
That is why I asked Redbaron in my earlier post to explain why he feels that marriage can only be between a man an a woman - what better way to start a discussion ?
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on January 06, 2015, 02:36:52 PM
...but their true concerns didn't start with the advent of marriage equality nor will it end with it's eradication.
True enough; they probably started with the freeing of the slaves or with giving women the vote.
Fla. could become Deep South's prime gay wedding destination (http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Fla-could-become-Deep-South-s-prime-gay-wedding-5997202.php)
But Jacksonville certainly won't.
^^Many qualified people locally have stated they will perform ceremonies here for any gay couples desiring them, for any price from cheap down to free.
It's ridiculous to assume the mean-spirited feelings of one local clerk is going to stop the inevitable flow of change.
It's a day of celebration and freedom. Enjoy.
A response by Tallahassee's new mayor, concerning Fussell's decision:
QuoteTallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum to North Fla. gay couples: Get married here
@MarcACaputo
Young.
Smart.
Black.
Mayor of Florida's capitol city.
Andrew Gillum was a rising star in the Florida Democratic Party's otherwise-dim firmament even before the courts overturned the state's gay-marriage ban.
But the historic decision gave him a chance to shine politically. And he did.
While many other Democrats were silent, Gillum criticized surrounding conservative North Florida counties for refusing to perform any marriages in court houses because some of their clerks oppose gay marriage. Gillum invited the gay couples to Tallahassee to get married in Leon County instead.
This obviously won't win Gillum any conservative votes. But he's not a Republican. And his move is already winning the hearts of liberals and gay-rights groups such as Equality Florida, which posted his statement along with a picture of the mayor and his family:
"At midnight tonight, most of the state of Florida will take a collective step towards complete equality by affording people the right to marry whomever they choose. I am disheartened, however, by the decision of several counties around Florida to discontinue the opportunity for people to have courthouse marriage ceremonies. In light of these unfortunate announcements, I would like to extend an invitation to the loving couples of Duval, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Baker, Clay, Pasco, Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Calhoun, Liberty, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties to hold their marriage ceremonies here in the Capital City. I hope that this issue reminds us that love is never wrong, and that equality must continue to be a part of the progress we work to drive in our community, our state, and in our country. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, 'The time is always right to do what is right.'"
The immediate politics aside, Gillum's advocacy for gay rights is also significant because of his race. African-Americans in 2008 were the most-likely racial/ethnic group to support Florida's gay-marriage ban, according to exit polls. The ban passed with 62 percent of the vote. Non-Hispanic whites backed it 60-40 percent, Hispanics 64-36 percent and African-Americans 71-29 percent.
Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/01/tallahassee-mayor-andrew-gillum-to-north-fla-gay-couples-get-married-here.html#storylink=cpy
(http://miamiherald.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b26169e201bb07d3dd9a970d-pi)
Great reaction !
A ray of light in North Florida's conservative politics.
Its unfortunate that most people in jax agree with the decisions to stop marriage at the courthouse..this city is still packed full of conservative right wing idiots who could care less about anyone who isnt a bible thumping baptist...this city is divided..it hates african americans and gays..lol...keep an eye on your neighbor...chances are he or she hates gays and african americans. What else can we do to poke a stick in the eye of conservatives?...what issue is next?
I don't agree that most people in Jax are idiots or care less about others. In fact, Mr. Fussell has maligned his clerks by claiming that they feel uncomfortable performing marriages at the courthouse - a few may but I'm betting some do not. Irv is right, we should be celebrating these changes and praising our judges, lawyers, and notaries who jumped up to say they are proud to do the right thing.
Quote from: Gunnar on January 06, 2015, 02:45:27 PM
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on January 06, 2015, 02:36:52 PM
Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 05, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.
From my experience with people who have a hard time with same-sex couples and gay marriage, their outrage is really manifested on more systemic, generational, and societal issues that cannot be explained in a tweet or a simple one-paragraph blog post.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Plus, the issue is that people are not allowed to live their lives as they wish because others don't feel good about it but cannot simply (really) explain why (or don't want to because their reasons are simply stupid) - is this acceptable in any way ?
That is why I asked Redbaron in my earlier post to explain why he feels that marriage can only be between a man an a woman - what better way to start a discussion ?
Yes, it's a very simple and straightforward question to ask but it's no surprise to me that same sex marriage haters come up with the most insane and convoluted answers, if they bother to give an answer at all. Just goes to show how people can complicate simple questions.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 07, 2015, 07:51:43 AM
A response by Tallahassee's new mayor, concerning Fussell's decision:
QuoteTallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum to North Fla. gay couples: Get married here
@MarcACaputo
Young.
Smart.
Black.
Mayor of Florida's capitol city.
Andrew Gillum was a rising star in the Florida Democratic Party's otherwise-dim firmament even before the courts overturned the state's gay-marriage ban.
But the historic decision gave him a chance to shine politically. And he did.
While many other Democrats were silent, Gillum criticized surrounding conservative North Florida counties for refusing to perform any marriages in court houses because some of their clerks oppose gay marriage. Gillum invited the gay couples to Tallahassee to get married in Leon County instead.
This obviously won't win Gillum any conservative votes. But he's not a Republican. And his move is already winning the hearts of liberals and gay-rights groups such as Equality Florida, which posted his statement along with a picture of the mayor and his family:
"At midnight tonight, most of the state of Florida will take a collective step towards complete equality by affording people the right to marry whomever they choose. I am disheartened, however, by the decision of several counties around Florida to discontinue the opportunity for people to have courthouse marriage ceremonies. In light of these unfortunate announcements, I would like to extend an invitation to the loving couples of Duval, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Baker, Clay, Pasco, Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Calhoun, Liberty, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties to hold their marriage ceremonies here in the Capital City. I hope that this issue reminds us that love is never wrong, and that equality must continue to be a part of the progress we work to drive in our community, our state, and in our country. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, 'The time is always right to do what is right.'"
The immediate politics aside, Gillum's advocacy for gay rights is also significant because of his race. African-Americans in 2008 were the most-likely racial/ethnic group to support Florida's gay-marriage ban, according to exit polls. The ban passed with 62 percent of the vote. Non-Hispanic whites backed it 60-40 percent, Hispanics 64-36 percent and African-Americans 71-29 percent.
Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/01/tallahassee-mayor-andrew-gillum-to-north-fla-gay-couples-get-married-here.html#storylink=cpy
(http://miamiherald.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b26169e201bb07d3dd9a970d-pi)
See, North Florida! There is no need to be crying in your beer about how backwards and ignorant the area is when you have enlightened politicians and judges like him standing up for what's right. Yeah you will get some chiding nationally because of these clerks actions, but as time reveals again and again - it's better to be on the RIGHT side of history than get stuck on the wrong side of it.
And it's not too late to change sides, haters.
^^^^^
A very valid point, which Ron Littlepage mentioned in his latest column as well:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-01-06/story/ron-littlepage-fussell-should-know-better
The community should take this opportunity to come together and open a small pop up wedding chapel in one of the many vacant bldgs down by the courthouse and officiants could volunteer to officiate in the small pop up chapel. Or even better have some events on the new stage built in Hemming plaza.
I agree with Stephen, which is why it is important to support candidates for City Council in March who are vocal about their support for an HRO.
And Cutter, there is a large wedding celebration in Hemming on Saturday.
Quote from: stephendare on January 04, 2015, 10:39:22 AM
Quote from: coredumped on January 04, 2015, 01:38:17 AM
While their reason for ending courthouse weddings is small minded and stupid, there is one good thing to come out of this-less government doing things. They should have never been in this business to begin with.
Maybe since they're doing less, we can save some money and lay some people off.
Marriages are contracts and they have always been performed by judges and clerks. Going back to the founding of this country. In fact, one of the main functions of a 'justice of the peace' was to officiate (and more importantly, record, marriages)
What I think is ironic about this of course is that many of these same people (meaning the people specifically, like Ronnie in particular) have been preaching against the dangers of 'moral relativism' for many years when the laws illegalized homosexuality itself as a crime. "You may not agree with the law, but you have an obligation to obey it nonetheless".
This type of thinking seems to be fine when it comes to smoking pot, surrendering to body and car searches, and simply never being able to legally love someone, but not so fine when it comes to filling out paperwork.
Just some thoughts/questions here.
Marriages originated from religion, right? If our constitution requires the separation of the church and the State, then why are marriages carried out by government? Wouldn't ALL marriges be considered unconstitutional?
And as you state above, "Marriages are contracts". Could we simply revamp the terminology or syntax to appease those that are against gay "marriages"? Marriages would still be sacred ceremonies consumated through the laws/requirements of the church (or other religious institution) and a government approved contractual agreement that legally binds two people together would then be separated from the independently held ceremonies. One is a "Marriage", the other is a "Civil Union" or some other term. One holds weight with the religious institution that approved it and the other is an oficially recognized contract the state. Hell, as it stands now, you can't get married without a marriage certificate. Well instead of a marriage certificate, you get a civil union certificate.....
I dunno. Seems I may be reaching a bit, however, revamping the terminology could go a long way towards distancing the church from the state.
Thoughts?
It is refreshing to see Mayor Gillum model true leadership by having a progressive, democratic opinion and not being afraid to defend it. He obviously believes that his role as mayor requires him to represent all citizens, not just the ones he goes to church with.
Mayor Brown could take some leadership lessons from Gillum. So could all Democrats for that matter.
Quote from: Jason on January 07, 2015, 06:07:19 PM
Marriages originated from religion, right?
No. Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with both the church and the state staying out of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html
Quote... January 5, 2015 the federal order staying the ruling that Florida's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional will expire. This will allow same-sex couples to go to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license beginning on the morning of January 6, 2015. The licenses issued will require a 3 day waiting period before the couple can get married. This means the first day the couple can be married is January 10, 2015. Notaries and clergy will be present in Hemming Park to marry couples who have validly issued licenses. We will have a DJ for dancing afterwards in a mass reception.
All same-sex couples who come to the park on this day with a validly issued license, issued on January 6, 2015, can participate in this event. We are organizing the event to perform mass and individual weddings on this day.
You are welcome to come to celebrate and support the newly weds! Newly Weds should bring $10.00 for the recording of their licenses at the clerk's office.
If, on the off chance it isn't legal that day, come anyway and we will have a peaceful demonstration against the prohibition...... Oh! and we will dance anyway!!!
"excellent"!
Quote from: brainstormer on January 07, 2015, 08:33:20 PM
It is refreshing to see Mayor Gillum model true leadership by having a progressive, democratic opinion and not being afraid to defend it. He obviously believes that his role as mayor requires him to represent all citizens, not just the ones he goes to church with.
Mayor Brown could take some leadership lessons from Gillum. So could all Democrats for that matter.
I doubt Alvin Brown would characterize himself as a progressive Democrat. Andrew Gillum is also Mayor of a city far more progressive than the entirety of Duval County, so some could argue that Brown is representing the larger community.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 08, 2015, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: brainstormer on January 07, 2015, 08:33:20 PM
It is refreshing to see Mayor Gillum model true leadership by having a progressive, democratic opinion and not being afraid to defend it. He obviously believes that his role as mayor requires him to represent all citizens, not just the ones he goes to church with.
Mayor Brown could take some leadership lessons from Gillum. So could all Democrats for that matter.
I doubt Alvin Brown would characterize himself as a progressive Democrat. Andrew Gillum is also Mayor of a city far more progressive than the entirety of Duval County, so some could argue that Brown is representing the larger community.
I guess I'm just tired of Brown not taking stances on anything. To me that is a sign of weak leadership. His own fears of something being used against him during reelection keep him from recognizing that a segment of Jacksonville's population gained rights this week. The least he could have done is come out and said that he is happy more citizens of Jacksonville will have a better quality of life as a result of the marriage ruling. He could have reaffirmed that our taxpayer built courthouse should be open to all. He could have stated that Fussell's decision does more to harm the hundreds of straight couples in our city that use the courthouse to get married and that once again, the decision seemed hastily made and mean-spirited. He does claim to be a Democrat after all.
I've been saying for years I should just leave Jacksonville and maybe it is time. I clearly don't fit in here.
^Brown hid under his desk during the Human Rights Ordinance debates, and then worked behind the scenes to torpedo it. No way he's surfacing on this issue.
Weddings at the courthouse are coming BACK!
http://www.news4jax.com/news/weddings-may-return-to-the-duval-county-courthouse/30618464
But it doesn't sound like the Clerk's office will be doing them
Quote"I am working with Chief Judge (Donald) Mohan (sic: Moran) and the Bar Association on a solution to work it out where they could do the ceremonies in the courthouse for the arbor area, and that is all," Fussell said. "Hopefully they can come to a resolution with that. That is it."
"where THEY could the ceremonies" - so as not to upset Fussel's delicate sensibilities - which doesn't really change anything, because judges or others could do wedding anyway
Seems to me that the judge is trying to help Mr Fussell get out of the "briar patch".
If Fussell cannot serve all of Duval County citizen's he should resign. How much money is Duval county going to lose because weddings are no longer going to be performed at the courthouse?
If his staff felt uncomfortable DOING THEIR JOB, then they should have been fired. I am sure there are plenty of unemployed citizens in Jacksonville that can do the job and not feel uncomfortable.
I know for a fact if I told the company I work for that I do not feel comfortable doing my job I would be fired.
Quote from: Buforddawg on January 10, 2015, 01:09:33 PM
If Fussell cannot serve all of Duval County citizen's he should resign. How much money is Duval county going to lose because weddings are no longer going to be performed at the courthouse?
If his staff felt uncomfortable DOING THEIR JOB, then they should have been fired. I am sure there are plenty of unemployed citizens in Jacksonville that can do the job and not feel uncomfortable.
I know for a fact if I told the company I work for that I do not feel comfortable doing my job I would be fired.
So firing someone because they refuse to violate their religious beliefs is not discriminatory? Hmmm. Interesting.
It would be like sort of firing a bar tender who refuses to serve drinks because the drinking of alcohol is against his beliefs. You're not let go because of your personal beliefs. You're let go because you can't perform the requirements of your position. That's not discriminatory. Sort of like being against stripping, then applying and accepting a job that requires you to get naked and dance for money. If you refuse to do the job you were hired to do but still expect a paycheck for showing up, what other options does management have? At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. If I have a fear of flying, I should not apply or train to become a pilot.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on January 11, 2015, 02:05:34 PM
Quote from: Buforddawg on January 10, 2015, 01:09:33 PM
If Fussell cannot serve all of Duval County citizen's he should resign. How much money is Duval county going to lose because weddings are no longer going to be performed at the courthouse?
If his staff felt uncomfortable DOING THEIR JOB, then they should have been fired. I am sure there are plenty of unemployed citizens in Jacksonville that can do the job and not feel uncomfortable.
I know for a fact if I told the company I work for that I do not feel comfortable doing my job I would be fired.
So firing someone because they refuse to violate their religious beliefs is not discriminatory? Hmmm. Interesting.
It would seem to me that it's the individuals getting married that are violating the clerk's religious beliefs, not the clerk themself.
Quote from: Buforddawg on January 10, 2015, 01:09:33 PM
If his staff felt uncomfortable DOING THEIR JOB, then they should have been fired. I am sure there are plenty of unemployed citizens in Jacksonville that can do the job and not feel uncomfortable.
the key question here is whether performing weddings is a required duty of the Clerk of Courts office.
I do not think it is a requirement of the Clerk of the Courts, per the Florida Constitution, despite there being a fee schedule in statute.
However, it was a part of the job when Fussell and the staff took their jobs. What if some of them "felt uncomfortable" with inter-racial or inter-faith marriages? Or of two Wiccans? Or a couple of significantly different ages?
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on January 11, 2015, 02:05:34 PM
Quote from: Buforddawg on January 10, 2015, 01:09:33 PM
If Fussell cannot serve all of Duval County citizen's he should resign. How much money is Duval county going to lose because weddings are no longer going to be performed at the courthouse?
If his staff felt uncomfortable DOING THEIR JOB, then they should have been fired. I am sure there are plenty of unemployed citizens in Jacksonville that can do the job and not feel uncomfortable.
I know for a fact if I told the company I work for that I do not feel comfortable doing my job I would be fired.
So firing someone because they refuse to violate their religious beliefs is not discriminatory? Hmmm. Interesting.
Since when is there a right to discriminate against others in performance of a public duty? What's religion have to do with it?
Quote from: thelakelander on January 11, 2015, 02:36:39 PM
It would be like sort of firing a bar tender who refuses to serve drinks because the drinking of alcohol is against his beliefs. You're not let go because of your personal beliefs. You're let go because you can't perform the requirements of your position. That's not discriminatory. Sort of like being against stripping, then applying and accepting a job that requires you to get naked and dance for money. If you refuse to do the job you were hired to do but still expect a paycheck for showing up, what other options does management have? At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. If I have a fear of flying, I should not apply or train to become a pilot.
In this case the requirements of the position changed after they were hired. While the clerk handled this very poorly, firing someone because of their religious beliefs is illegal and a reasonable accommodation would have to be made for those who held those religious beliefs.
Quote from: carpnter on January 11, 2015, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 11, 2015, 02:36:39 PM
It would be like sort of firing a bar tender who refuses to serve drinks because the drinking of alcohol is against his beliefs. You're not let go because of your personal beliefs. You're let go because you can't perform the requirements of your position. That's not discriminatory. Sort of like being against stripping, then applying and accepting a job that requires you to get naked and dance for money. If you refuse to do the job you were hired to do but still expect a paycheck for showing up, what other options does management have? At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. If I have a fear of flying, I should not apply or train to become a pilot.
In this case the requirements of the position changed after they were hired. While the clerk handled this very poorly, firing someone because of their religious beliefs is illegal and a reasonable accommodation would have to be made for those who held those religious beliefs.
If their job description changes (sort of like when those waitresses at lunch counters had to start serving black customers) then they can either adjust to it or quit. Simply refusing to do their jobs is not an acceptable outcome, especially for a public servant, which Fussell is.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on January 11, 2015, 02:05:34 PM
Quote from: Buforddawg on January 10, 2015, 01:09:33 PM
If Fussell cannot serve all of Duval County citizen's he should resign. How much money is Duval county going to lose because weddings are no longer going to be performed at the courthouse?
If his staff felt uncomfortable DOING THEIR JOB, then they should have been fired. I am sure there are plenty of unemployed citizens in Jacksonville that can do the job and not feel uncomfortable.
I know for a fact if I told the company I work for that I do not feel comfortable doing my job I would be fired.
No, it's called firing someone who refuses to do their job.
So firing someone because they refuse to violate their religious beliefs is not discriminatory? Hmmm. Interesting.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 11, 2015, 02:36:39 PM
It would be like sort of firing a bar tender who refuses to serve drinks because the drinking of alcohol is against his beliefs. You're not let go because of your personal beliefs. You're let go because you can't perform the requirements of your position. That's not discriminatory. Sort of like being against stripping, then applying and accepting a job that requires you to get naked and dance for money. If you refuse to do the job you were hired to do but still expect a paycheck for showing up, what other options does management have? At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. If I have a fear of flying, I should not apply or train to become a pilot.
Excellent response Lake!
Quote from: carpnter on January 11, 2015, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 11, 2015, 02:36:39 PM
It would be like sort of firing a bar tender who refuses to serve drinks because the drinking of alcohol is against his beliefs. You're not let go because of your personal beliefs. You're let go because you can't perform the requirements of your position. That's not discriminatory. Sort of like being against stripping, then applying and accepting a job that requires you to get naked and dance for money. If you refuse to do the job you were hired to do but still expect a paycheck for showing up, what other options does management have? At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. If I have a fear of flying, I should not apply or train to become a pilot.
In this case the requirements of the position changed after they were hired. While the clerk handled this very poorly, firing someone because of their religious beliefs is illegal and a reasonable accommodation would have to be made for those who held those religious beliefs.
How did the requirements for the
task of marrying couples change? The only requirement that changed was the process of issuing marriage certificates by including same sex couples.
^ While it is clear the Clerk of Court's responsibilities include issuing marriage licenses, I am still not aware that the responsibilities include officiating weddings. This is a very important issue in determining whether Fussell is not fulfilling his duties.
^What really matters is the effect this has. Until December the clerk was perfectly happy performing weddings for people. Now that a discriminatory and unconstitutional prohibition has been overturned, Fussell has found a way to deny them (and effectively denying everyone) a previously offered service.
I know Fussell is a good guy, and I'm sure he doesn't think his actions are discriminatory. But they are, no two ways about it. And on top of the discrimination, he's managed to paint the whole city in a terrible light.
In case anyone missed it, this story got Jacksonville back on the Daily Show:
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/dic6af/florida-haters
^ Saw that last night. We haven't been watching the Daily Show as religiously lately and just happened to tune in right as they were making fun of Duval, Clay & Baker county. I knew we'd end up on the daily show after the decision to ban all marriage ceremonies was announced.
Duval Cassanova, heh.
Well, on the plus side Jax may be able to get Hobby Lobby to relocate their HQ. Then again, they probably don't watch the Daily Show ;)
Well, I have to admit it was funny :)
And I have to admit it seems true that FLA has some odd news items and wild rule-breakers.
Love the Daily Show and Jon Stewart.
Quote from: brainstormer on January 08, 2015, 10:14:48 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 08, 2015, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: brainstormer on January 07, 2015, 08:33:20 PM
It is refreshing to see Mayor Gillum model true leadership by having a progressive, democratic opinion and not being afraid to defend it. He obviously believes that his role as mayor requires him to represent all citizens, not just the ones he goes to church with.
Mayor Brown could take some leadership lessons from Gillum. So could all Democrats for that matter.
I doubt Alvin Brown would characterize himself as a progressive Democrat. Andrew Gillum is also Mayor of a city far more progressive than the entirety of Duval County, so some could argue that Brown is representing the larger community.
I guess I'm just tired of Brown not taking stances on anything. To me that is a sign of weak leadership. His own fears of something being used against him during reelection keep him from recognizing that a segment of Jacksonville's population gained rights this week. The least he could have done is come out and said that he is happy more citizens of Jacksonville will have a better quality of life as a result of the marriage ruling. He could have reaffirmed that our taxpayer built courthouse should be open to all. He could have stated that Fussell's decision does more to harm the hundreds of straight couples in our city that use the courthouse to get married and that once again, the decision seemed hastily made and mean-spirited. He does claim to be a Democrat after all.
I've been saying for years I should just leave Jacksonville and maybe it is time. I clearly don't fit in here.
Yea you should move away. Go where you feel excepted.
^ Brown being a bigot would entail some kind of consciousness though & taking a stand on something, anything. I personally just think he does what he's told & doesn't try to ruffle any feathers, which is his main problem. He clearly lacks vision.
Quote from: stephendare on January 15, 2015, 12:15:05 PM
I guess that's what all minorities should do right? just leave? Its nice to see ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand no matter whose ox is getting gored. I remember this same argument being used for people who married into a different race.
Meh, I didn't have any problems to what Cooly said, no need to be so overly emotional. I could see if he said "If anyone don't like the way Jax is, hit the road!!!" It didn't come off like that at all, nor did a 'Jax is fine the way it is' vibe. Why live somewhere that you don't want to? A 'I should leave and maybe it's the time' stance doesn't sound like finance would be a problem.
dude said he wasnt happy and suggested he should leave
I agree if he isnt happy he should leave
Stephandare comes in with his bullshit about race
typical.
I guess I need someone to explain to me why some people think it is okay to discriminate against another human being just because they are not like you. If there religion is the excuse, they should reflect on teachings that say a creature made by your god, but that is not like you then you may treat them as though they are less than you. I promise if you really think about it there is a serious flaw in that teaching.
If every person would really live the mantra do unto others as you would have done to you, we would not have these ignorant views on other people's life styles. Hops of soapbox.
Quote from: CG7 on January 16, 2015, 09:50:12 AM
I guess I need someone to explain to me why some people think it is okay to discriminate against another human being just because they are not like you. If there religion is the excuse, they should reflect on teachings that say a creature made by your god, but that is not like you then you may treat them as though they are less than you. I promise if you really think about it there is a serious flaw in that teaching.
If every person would really live the mantra do unto others as you would have done to you, we would not have these ignorant views on other people's life styles. Hops of soapbox.
Damn that's a good question. Wish I knew the answer.
This city voted this idiot conservative southern baptist fool and we must suffer with what we are...a southern biggoted religious town...welcome...now take your children and get the hell out of this city as soon as you can before its biggotry seeps into your child psyche.
I'll jump in on this and in the defense of Mayor Brown. And Jax as a whole. One (of many questions) I'm "pondering" is the position of Mayor of Jax. It seems to me this position is one of a more ceremonial nature than what many may think of as the chief executive of the minicipality. The Mayor has no vote on the City Council and just about all the other positions of the executive branch are elected, not appointed by the Chief executive of the city. So, the mayor really has no direct impact on legislation and, for a huge part, even in execution of the legislation of the city. Im drawing the conclusion that the mayor is essentially a beaucrat. It seems his major duties is the presentation of the budget and formal relations in the name of the city. Mayor Brown's definitive experience is indeed that of beaucracy.
He really cant do anything concerning this travesty at the courthouse. And was powerless in the defeat of the HRO legislation. Does this stand true?
The mayor also has to approve or veto legislation, so he has every incentive to work with the council on those issue. On the HRO, he was far from powerless; if he had taken a strong public stand it certainly would have affected the outcome. However, he was so terrified of having to make a decision that he hid under his desk during the whole debate. It also appears that the whole time Brown was dodging questions on the HRO he was actually working behind closed doors to torpedo the bill. According to Warren Jones (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-08-17/story/warren-jones-says-political-pressure-changed-human-rights-vote-suspects), the Mayor's Office got Reggie Brown and Johnny Gaffney to oppose the bill so it would never get to the mayor's desk (Gaffney had actually voted for a stronger version of the bill previously).
There's not much a mayor can do directly on the Clerk of the Courts issue, but taking an actual stand would certainly go a long way in convincing Fussell to reverse his discriminatory decision. So far we've seen nothing.
So while it's true that Brown is more or less an empty suit bureaucrat, it's not because of the office he occupies.
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
Hey George.
It doesn't. Jacksonville elected to have a 'strong mayor' government, and he appoints all of the administrative positions.
Its generally hard for a Jacksonville Mayor not to get his way, if he puts his mind to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor–council_government#Strong-mayor_form
But he doesnt appoint one of the citys top administration positions, Sheriff of the City. And he has no say (Im not saying impact) on Clerk of the Courts.
W
Which also was an elected position.
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 18, 2015, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
Hey George.
It doesn't. Jacksonville elected to have a 'strong mayor' government, and he appoints all of the administrative positions.
Its generally hard for a Jacksonville Mayor not to get his way, if he puts his mind to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor–council_government#Strong-mayor_form
But he doesnt appoint one of the citys top administration positions, Sheriff of the City. And he has no say (Im not saying impact) on Clerk of the Courts.
W
Which also was an elected position.
All the constitutional officers (meaning required by the Florida Constitution) are elected offices, but they still have to answer budget wise to the Mayor, as he submits and administers the City Budget (with the advice and consent of the Council). For example, while the Sheriff is a Constitutional Officer, regard that the Mayor of Jacksonville is having to solve the Pension Issue.
Thanks for confirming that, Stephen. As the sheriff has wasted no time in condemning the mayor for just that.
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 01:16:10 PM
I think he doesn't like the way Alvin has done it, not that Alvin has the responsibility to do so.
It involves taking money from another independent authority btw, the JEA.
I would think Rutherford has a political grudge also. He's blamed the mayor for an increase in crime, just this week. Republican vs Democrat?
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 01:25:32 PM
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 18, 2015, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 01:16:10 PM
I think he doesn't like the way Alvin has done it, not that Alvin has the responsibility to do so.
It involves taking money from another independent authority btw, the JEA.
I would think Rutherford has a political grudge also. He's blamed the mayor for an increase in crime, just this week. Republican vs Democrat?
Not expanding his budget to hire more cops, and reallocating a bunch of officers to Denise Lees district in order to prove to the neighborhood that she has the muscle.
A very good way to prove your conservatism is to balance the budget. And not raise taxes. Particularly to the constituants.
Uh-oh!!! :D
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 18, 2015, 01:29:30 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 01:25:32 PM
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 18, 2015, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 01:16:10 PM
I think he doesn't like the way Alvin has done it, not that Alvin has the responsibility to do so.
It involves taking money from another independent authority btw, the JEA.
I would think Rutherford has a political grudge also. He's blamed the mayor for an increase in crime, just this week. Republican vs Democrat?
Not expanding his budget to hire more cops, and reallocating a bunch of officers to Denise Lees district in order to prove to the neighborhood that she has the muscle.
A very good way to prove your conservatism is to balance the budget. And not raise taxes. Particularly to the constituants.
Conservatives balance the budget ? Since when ? Methinks they just overspend on different things...
Quote from: Gunnar on January 19, 2015, 09:06:39 AM
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 18, 2015, 01:29:30 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 01:25:32 PM
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 18, 2015, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 18, 2015, 01:16:10 PM
I think he doesn't like the way Alvin has done it, not that Alvin has the responsibility to do so.
It involves taking money from another independent authority btw, the JEA.
I would think Rutherford has a political grudge also. He's blamed the mayor for an increase in crime, just this week. Republican vs Democrat?
Not expanding his budget to hire more cops, and reallocating a bunch of officers to Denise Lees district in order to prove to the neighborhood that she has the muscle.
A very good way to prove your conservatism is to balance the budget. And not raise taxes. Particularly to the constituants.
Conservatives balance the budget ? Since when ? Methinks they just overspend on different things...
Truth hurts. Must be more politics (Democrat vs Republican) than leadership.
As much as this is heinous regarding civil rights, it cements a perception. One, about Florida in general as being a back-assward state, and of metropolitan Jax being a backwards area within said state.
On the plus side, most people are generally apathetic, so it's not as if backwards and crazy will trump tropical paradise for most peeps. However, on the other side of the coin is that does one really want to attract an apathetic to ignorant population as a rule?
Quote from: AaroniusLives on January 19, 2015, 12:08:58 PM
...does one really want to attract an apathetic to ignorant population as a rule?
Well, they're certainly easier to manipulate by fear-mongering politicians.