NY Clerk Quits Over SSM: "I Had to Choose Between My Job and My God.”


Laura Fotusky, a town clerk in western New York has resigned rather than be forced to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples when that becomes law in New York. This took place shortly after a second clerk (Barbara MacEwen in Volney, NY) was informed by her local DA that she would face prosecution for failing to personally grant licenses.

This is Laura's story, via the New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom website:

There was no protection provided in the [same-sex marriage] legislation for Town Clerks who are unable to sign these marriage licenses due to personal religious convictions, even though our US Constitution supports freedom of religion.”

... The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures. Since I love and follow Him, I cannot put my signature on something that is against God.

... “I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure. Therefore, I will be resigning as of July 21.

“It has been a pleasure and privilege to serve the Town as Barker Town Clerk.”


  1. Garrett
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    I see no problem with this.

  2. Posted July 13, 2011 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    There should be a lawsuit defending her religious liberty. Next the gays wanna teach it schools. We are headed to a sick disgusting world.

  3. bill
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    The gays do teach in schools. And the world is only as sick and disgusting as bigotry, especially religious based bigotry, makes it.

  4. Barb
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    SS"M" extremists "see no problem" with the disruption of lives that results from their actions. And they certainly see no honor in someone standing up for their beliefs.

    The farcical end justifies the destructive means.

  5. Shannon
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    If a person chooses not to do their job then they SHOULD quit. The bible doesn't sanctify marriage between one man and one woman. Has anyone even read the Old Testament?

  6. Lisa
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    You got it Barb, it's all about what they want. Not what's best for children, for society and certainly not for people like this clerk. They cheer her ousting from the job, just like they will be cheering when they can do the same to their biggest target, the religious institutions. If they could take them on upfront right now, they would.

  7. Joe
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Did she previously check to be sure that she was not signing marriage certificates for couples who engaged in premarital sex? Did she check that couples she was signing off for had not been divorced? If she has moral objections to same sex marriage she has taken the appropriate steps. Her right to have her own religious beliefs are in tact - her right to impose those beliefs on others? Well, she never had that, welcome to America folks.

  8. Comey Arifidly
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    I'm voting for Bachmann for President, she will get this country on the right track. Her change clinics have cured or repaired thousands of homosexuals seeking forgiveness and entry into the kingdom of God.

  9. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Umm are you all really that insane? She had a job to do sign a piece of paper not watch them consummate the marriage! Sheesh, you are all ridiculous saying her religious liberty was violated she is a govt employee not a pastor! Get over yourselves

  10. Barb
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Thanks to Jpk020 for proving our point.

  11. Drew
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    I smell hypocrisy. If she was so worried about signing her name on something that was against God, was she refusing to sign the marriage licenses of all applicants who have been divorced?

    In Luke 16:18 says ""Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.". Mark 10:2-12 echos this.

    So this town clerk has been signing her name to marriages that are against God, the Bible, and Jesus for as long as she has been in that role.

    I support her decision to stand by her moral convictions.... if only she were actually consistent about it.

  12. Dino
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Permalink


    Disruption of lives? Sorry, she disrupted HER OWN life with HER OWN actions by refusing to do the job which she is paid to do. She's more than welcome to stand up for her beliefs outside of her workplace.

  13. Thom
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    What would she do if two atheists wanted to get married? Two muslims? A jew and an atheist?

    All of these situations would certainly violate her christian beliefs. Can she just choose who she feels would be worthy of marriage? Why single out SSM?

  14. Randy E King
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Thom wrote:

    "What would she do if two atheists wanted to get married? Two muslims? A jew and an atheist?

    All of these situations would certainly violate her christian beliefs. Can she just choose who she feels would be worthy of marriage? Why single out SSM?"

    There is nothing in the Bible that condemns any of those things. Why do same-sex enthusiasts insist on comparing Apples to Oranges; am I the only one seeing a continuation of a theme with these miscreants?

    Hey look; an eagle...

  15. Thom
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    I'm pretty sure that the Bible say thou shalt not have any other God before me. Two muslims would certainly violate that.

    And Randy.... your constant name calling really does to bolster your arguments, which have always been pretty weak in the first place.

  16. Garrett
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Barb: I see plenty of problems with the disruptions of lives that result from our actions -- which is why I believe the clerk was out of order. Her intended actions carried with them the possibility of disrupting the lives of those who wanted to exercise their legal right to marry. Thus, I have no problem with the fact that since she obviously could not carry out the job she was paid to do, she should not continue to be paid to do it.

  17. Garrett
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    SW: How far do you extend religious liberty? Her religious freedoms end at the moment that she tries to impose them on others by denying them the legally granted right to wed. Would you be fine with allowing a Muslim clerk to deny an interfaith wedding between a Christian and a Muslim? No, because the clerk's right to object ends when it comes time to representing the interests of the state (not the interests of the clerk's religious doctrine).

  18. Garrett
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Lisa: You think that we have a giant target sitting on the back of "religious institutions"? I hate to break it to you: many of us are religious. We worship our gods, the same as you, and we structure our lives according to the thoughtful interpretations of our religious texts, same as you.

    This might be hard for you to believe, but I really do have the "best interests of our children" at heart when I fight for marriage equality -- and I'm not so blinded by ideology that I don't believe that you have them at heart, too. It's just that, clearly, we disagree on how to address those interests. We both believe that children should have stable homes and family lives, but we might disagree on the structures of those homes and families. Instead of pretending that we're some nefarious group out to kidnap you and your children, burn down your churches, and sodomize everyone you love, why don't you sit down and talk with one of us? We have a lot of common ground, and there's no need for this constant demonization (on either side), unless of course you're just out looking for demons.

  19. Thom
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    "They cheer her ousting from the job, just like they will be cheering when they can do the same to their biggest target, the religious institutions."

    First of all, she was not ousted. She chose to quit because she decided not to fulfill the obligations of her job.

    Second... we are not targeting religious institutions. It has always been religious institutions that target us because they feel it is their duty to save the world. Well, it's not!!! And if you continue to believe that way, we have no other alternative than to defend ourselves, which you see as aggression.

  20. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Barb I fail to see what point I made for you? Have you really come to grasp the fact that you are insane, or that her inability to do her job was obvious, or that her religious liberty was infact, not violated. Fingers crossed it's the first one! 🙂

  21. Doogan
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Hat's off to Laura Fotusky for doing the honorable thing. She resigned rather than trying to impose her religious beliefs on the citizens of New York.

    If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing your job, then you should find another job.

  22. Randy E King
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    @ Thom,

    The words Miscreant, and P-verts are proper words that are over seven hundred years old and are accurate descriptive of your activities.

    I know you would prefer folks only use words that your fellow miscreants coined for the express purpose of lending the appearance of acceptability to your depravity, but I for one refuse to be held in line by your ever evolving word smithing.


    Jews, Muslims, and Christians share the same God - the God of Abraham; as well as our fore fathers.

    Same-sex enthusiasts and their supporters hold their collective ignorance in high regards

  23. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Randy, Randy, Randy wrap your hate in as neat a package as you can its still hate!

  24. Randy E King
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    "When you belong to me you will hate what I hate"

    Same-sex enthusiasts always fall back o their "so what" response when backed against the wall.

    Hating what God hates is not only appropriate; it also happens to be divine.

  25. Sam Jones
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Yet another martyr for traditional marriage.

    None of you SS"M" advocates realize that this travesty, and others that you condone, will work against you in the long run.

  26. Thom
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Wow Randy.... shouldn't you be out with the rest of Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funeral of a soldier or something?

  27. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Soooo your discounting the relationship between Naomi and Ruth? David and Jonathan? If marriage is so important to god why didn't Jesus marry? Randy please read your book of fables, your ignorance is showing again! Why aren't you out promoting real biblical marriage? That is marriage between a man and his wives- wives that he owns aka Property!

  28. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Since I'm sleepy, why not- Randy quote that fire and brimstone!

  29. Sam Jones
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    So now people of faith are being purged from the government with the full approval of SS"M" advocates.

    Have we become Soviet Russia?

  30. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    @Sam nope still the good ol' us of a where you are free to believe what you want, as long as it doesnt interfere with my life! Your freedom of religion extends to you at home not when you work for the government!

  31. Louis E.
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    I am NOT religious,and I would resign as well rather than be forced to aid and abet the harmful practice of same-sex sexual relationships.It has nothing to do with religion.Government's only responsibility to persons in such relationships with regard to those relationships is to help them leave and end those relationships...treating them as marriages is like subsidizing drinks for alcoholics.

  32. Bruce
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    "Jesus stated that if a man could not control his urges he should marry, but when asked what of those that could control their urges Jesus replied that that was good too."

    "Jesus was able to keep is junk to himself..."

    You have Jesus confused with Paul, 1 Corinthians 7. I'm no New Testament scholar, but I think it's safe to say there's not much evidence regarding what Jesus did with his "junk."

  33. Thom
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Bruce. It's sad when those who are hiding behind their Bibles can't even quote it correctly!

  34. Sam Jones
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    "Your freedom of religion extends to you at home not when you work for the government!"

    Where in the US Constituion is such a restriction specified?

  35. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    Separation of church and state your freedom of religion and my freedom from religion (home and govt respectively)

  36. Sam Jones
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    There is no freedom FROM religion. Only freedom OF religion. Check the constitution.

  37. Jpk020
    Posted July 13, 2011 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Yes Sam they are the same thing your religion stops at your door as would mine no one can force me to be Christian, Buddhist, atheist, Taoist, or pagan.

  38. Eric
    Posted July 14, 2011 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Athiests and agnostics are also protected under the freedom of religion.

  39. Posted July 14, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Permalink


    You're mistaken. The constitution, taking into account the mindset of original drafters, specifically highlights the existence of religious freedom and establishment clauses to protect people's independent religious beliefs as well as to ensure the freedom from religion.

    It was a direct response to what we came from: a state of religious persecution to one of religious freedom.

    Right now, this entire argument exists because most opponents of LGBT rights who are active in their opposition follow a model and template of action that forces their religious convictions directly into the households of others (gay and lesbian Americans in this instance). That is the epitome of religious persecution.

  40. Posted July 14, 2011 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    The Bible is as outdated as it gets. As far as 'the gays' being 'fixed' by Bachmann.. wow. Very ignorant and closed minded folks in this world. Thats ok though.. it's obviously becoming more and more accepted to be yourself and not be burdened by religion from birth instead of being able to make your own decisions when you're old enough. You religious fanatics would be floored by just how many men and women live in secret. Yay for acceptance!

  41. Carl
    Posted July 15, 2011 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    Some people simply don't want the homosexual lifestyle forced down their throats. Do I have a right to discriminate against or physically harm someone based upon their choice of sexuality? No. Do they have the right to force me to rubber-stamp their way of life? Hell no! Next thing you know, it will be taught in school that Jack & John is just as natural as Jack & Jill. No wonder this nation's in the crapper...

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.