Government clerks have no right to decide which policies they'll enforce, just as pharmacists should have no right to decide which drugs to dispense

Mayor Newsom at a May 15 press conference

"If you don't want to provide a marriage certificate and you've got a job that does that, then you should think twice about why you got the job in the first place and maybe you should get a new job. Talk about a slippery slope, Mr. County Clerk down in San Diego."

--San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, in a Reuters interview, responding to news that San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith may allow clerks with moral or religious objections to remove themselves from processing same-sex marriages

"I was pretty shocked about all that, candidly," Mayor Newsom told Reuters, "and pretty outraged." He continued:

"This is a civil marriage that civil servants have a responsibility to provide, so for civil servants on religious grounds to start passing judgments, they, I think, are breaking the core tenet of what civil service is all about."

"I've got very strong religious beliefs. So now, all of a sudden, I don't have to do certain things, even though that's my responsibility as mayor?"

Well said, Mr. Mayor. This has been bugging me since the controversy, which to my mind never became nearly controversial enough, over pharmacists being allowed to not fill prescriptions for substances to which they have religious or moral objections.

The San Diego clerks are government employees, whose sole reason for employment is to carry out their designated role in the functioning of the government of the state of California. Of course they're entitled to opinions about those government functions, but I don't see how they can be permitted to let those opinions interfere with the performance of their job.

Similarly pharmacists, when they dispense legally controlled substances, are acting as agents of the government substance-controlling apparatus. If their consciences don't permit them to dispense legal substances, then they should feel free to pursue a line of work that doesn't impinge on their principles.

For the original (May 22) Reuters report, "Smith in San Diego did not return calls for comment." Today's San Diego Union-Times reports:

If the Supreme Court does not grant a stay of its decision by the close of business June 16, the San Diego County Clerk's office will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at branches in San Diego, San Marcos, Chula Vista, El Cajon and Kearny Mesa on June 17.

Meanwhlie, Pat Sherman reports:

Smith's contentious decision to let clerks with religious objections opt out of performing same-sex ceremonies is on hold.

“That is now a personnel matter, and I can't discuss that,” Smith said.

Well, I suppose this is in a general sense "a personnel matter," and I have no doubt that Mr. Smith regrets having blundered into a public discussion of it. But if he really imagines that he can allow selective enforcement of the law without being answerable publicly, then one of us is nuts, and I don't think it's me.

#