Objection: Lillian Ladele's beliefs are being challenged
Posted on 01/13/2008 2:58:24 AM PST by Stoat
A crucifix worn prominently around her neck, this is the marriage registrar at the centre of a landmark legal case over her opposition to gay weddings.
Lillian Ladele has launched proceedings against Islington Council in North London, claiming that to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies between same-sex couples is incompatible with her religious principles.
Her refusal to supervise such unions has brought her into conflict with the council, where she has worked for more than ten years.
Scroll down for more...
Objection: Lillian Ladele's beliefs are being challenged
Now she is taking her case to an employment tribunal, claiming "discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief".
Until last month, Britain's 1,700 registrars of births, marriages and deaths worked, in effect, on a freelance basis under the supervision of the Registrar General.
This gave them the freedom to opt out of civil partnership ceremonies if they chose to do so.
But their employment status was changed on December 1 by a new law, the Statistics and Registration Act, which brought them under the control of town halls.
As local government workers, they must now carry out council officers' instructions.
Ms Ladele, who earns £31,000 a year, launched her legal action on November 28 - two days before the new legislation came into force.
She intends to represent herself at the tribunal, which is expected to hear her case later this year.
Last week she was carrying out her duties as normal, marrying couples at Islington Town Hall, where hundreds of gay weddings have taken place over the past two years.
But the dispute - revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week - is already arousing strong passions. Stephen
Green, founder of Christian Voice, the evangelical organisation that tried to stop the BBC screening Jerry Springer: The Opera because of the hit musical's "blasphemous" content, said: "I have a great deal of sympathy with this lady. She signed up for the honourable job of joining men and women in marriage.
"Now she is being asked to solemnise pretend unions of homosexuals. No wonder she feels aggrieved."
Former Tory Home Office Minister Ann Widdecombe said: "Nobody is being denied a civil partnership - they are merely being denied a civil partnership from one person.
"The terms of engagement for marriage registrars have been changed unilaterally. There should be a right of refusal for those who have a conscientious objection to carrying out these ceremonies."
But the gay rights campaign group Stonewall said Ms Ladele's opposition to civil partnerships, which were given legal recognition in 2005, was unjustified.
"All public servants are paid to uphold the law of the land," said a spokesman.
"Doubtless there were those 40 years ago who claimed a moral objection to mixed marriages between people of different ethnic origin. Discrimination on any basis is equally unacceptable."
Mark Rimmer of LACORS, the local authority employers' organisation, who deals with matters affectingregistrars, said: "This case will determine whether it is legal to discriminate against someone while upholding one's own human rights and religious beliefs. Case law would indicate that this argument is not likely to be upheld."
A spokesman for Liberal Democratcontrolled Islington Council said: "The legal position is rather complex and the issues will no doubt be explored at the tribunal."
Ms Ladele declined to comment.
"All public servants are paid to uphold the law of the land," said a spokesman.
Except when you're a muslim public servant, of course:
Great Britain Muslim police officer excused Israel guard duty (Embassy duty excuse labeled P.C.)
Ping
Civil partnerships (whether same sex/opposite sex) have nothing to do with religion. They are pieces of paper issued by a government, which it is ‘Ms’ Ladele’s job to issue.
The problem comes when the word ‘marriage’ is used to describe legal partnerships between people, rather than being ascribed to a religious sacrament as it correctly should. This lady buys into that:
“Last week she was carrying out her duties as normal, marrying couples at Islington Town Hall”
If she realised that she wasn’t ‘marrying’ couples, just issuing them with a piece of paper, maybe that would clarify matters for her.
If she really feels that her religious beliefs should stop her from issuing these pieces of paper to anyone who is not actually going to be married in the eyes of God, then logically she would not be able to issue them to anyone undergoing a civil ‘wedding’ and should probably find a new job.
“It’s apparent from the article, the woman and her beliefs have remained consistent”
She believes she is marrying people, when in fact she is issuing them a legal document that has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage.
Government should have nothing to do with marriage.
It should be based entirely in mammalian biology... Make a baby, you are married. Birth certificate = marriage certificate. Problem solved...
This is without a doubt a slimey, convoluted argument. It's about homosexuals perverting a sacred institution. One which we all should fight to keep sanctified. Secularist want to tear down what is good and just so they may live a life free from judgement for their willful misdeeds. I like to call them exactly what they are, selfish prix!
At the rate of things...in ten years...there will be a handful of people marrying animals. In 30 years...a handful of people marrying robots. In 60 years...a handful of people marrying imaginary people who don’t even exist. This registrar’s battle is not going to end...it will simply slip from gear to gear.
LMAO
I was also delighted to see quite a few comments which where not exactly pro-Islamofascist....surprising in the usually hard-Left juvenile YouTube comment area.
Well I do take a Catholic view of this and hence view Holy Matrimony as a sacrament. It is clear to me that a sacrament cannot be bestowed by the state.
The lady in this case seems to think she is responsible for a sacred action, rather than merely filling in some legal paperwork. She is perpetuating the problem.
I believe some denominations may not see marriage as a sacrament, which maybe explains the difference. Do they consider a marriage blessed by God, even if it is in a secular legal ceremony in a registry office? I don’t know the answer, but you seem to imply that you do, at least.
Government should not be seen as being involved in marriage. But they can, of course, issue whatever legal pieces of paper they see fit.
Which country is immune from the take over of traditional family mores by serial divorce and remarriage (where the breakdown began) and the re-defining of marriage so that it can include same sex couples?
Good point! ;O)
I think some people are starting to get it. Maybe it will be late, but maybe they will rise to the occasion. We can only wait and keep hammering...
AMEN to that!
“Government should have nothing to do with marriage.”
There has been no successful civilization that did not uphold marriage between and a man and a woman and the consequent family unit. That is the basis of civilization.
That’s not a rationale for government regulation. The UK had no such concept as civil marriage prior to 1836, and seemed to be doing ok for itself.
Is there any reason why we can’t return to a situation where marriage is a religious ceremony that happens in a church? (Not arguing for a return to the actual pre-1836 situation here which actually only allowed C of E, Quaker and Jewish marriages....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.