NOM BLOG

Legal Action Threatened Against Town Unless They Force Clerk to Issue SSM Licenses

 

CitizenLink:

People for the American Way Foundation (PFAW) is threatening legal action against a New York town unless its clerk starts issuing same-sex marriage licenses — or resigns.

Rose Marie Belforti made national headlines last month when she announced that her Christian beliefs would not allow her to sign same-sex marriage licenses, and that a deputy clerk would now fulfill this particular task.

According to PFAW, Belforti has committed a misdemeanor for refusing to personally issue two women a marriage license on Aug. 30. If the board fails to force Belforti to “perform her essential duties” or resign, the liberal advocacy group vows to take legal action on the women’s behalf.

19 Comments

  1. Posted September 15, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Just like the NYC government forced its police department to issue pistol permits to those not legally prohibited from carrying pistols?

  2. Louis E.
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Like the ACLU,PFAW is a group my family *used* to support,until they got involved in issues where we were not in agreement with their stand...

  3. TC Matthews
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Live and let live right? Why is it so necessary to *force* everyone into agreement? It's not enough to force the redefinition of marriage on the nation, but we all have to like it too. Ridiculous.

  4. Les P., PhD
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Same sex "marriage" ??

    The sexual revolution -- more revolting than ever!

  5. Little man
    Posted September 16, 2011 at 3:13 am | Permalink

    Rose Marie Belforti is a hero.

    Oh, yes, people can commit civil disobedience and have shouting matches in private property outside Speaker John Boehner's office, but Rose Marie Belforti is not allowed to demand her job rights (including freedom of religion).

    It really appears we have a much greater issue that same-sex civil marriage (a misnomer). We have the issue of FREEDOM OF RELIGION (people want to redefine it too), and if we see philosophy as various forms of religion, then it is an issue that affects everyone in the USA. It takes same-sex civil marriage to remind us how importat the USA's 1st amendment to the Constitution (the 1st!, there was no amendment issue more important at the time). Without it, the USA would be very different:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

  6. Louis E,
    Posted September 16, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    As a non-religious person opposed to SSM for non-religious reasons who would resign from a town or county clerk's office rather than be an accomplice to treatment of a same-sex union as a marriage,I do not see this as a particularly religious issue.

  7. Dean Cameron
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    One doesn't have to like a Law, one must merely obey it.

  8. Kim N.W.
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    "An Unjust law is no law at all"

  9. Alice Harper
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    As a nation that has allowed citizens the 'right' to have objections for various thing over the years....what in the world are we thinking? Mrs. Belforti made arrangements wherby another clerk would issue the certificate.....what in the world is wrong with that? Are we attempting to make everyone fit MY mold? There are objectors to the military....they are given other jobs not involved in direct conflict. Doctors are not forced to perform abortions...You cannot make individuals do what you want......Sounds like spoiled children to me.

  10. Inga Turner
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    @Dean Cameron: I agree to a point. The freedom of religion and to abide by one's faith supersedes that. Abortion, for instance, is legal, but if you are, say, Catholic, and work at a hospital, assisting in abortions is against your religion. You have the right to say so and step aside. This woman didn't say the women couldn't have the license, she simply said she had to step aside and let someone else do it because it was against her religious beliefs. She did not try to bar the women from it, she had someone else issue the license.

  11. Daniel
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    @ Dean: from a Christian standpoint, God calls on everyone to obey the laws of the land *only* if they are morally sound/agree with His. So what you say applies in some aspects and not in others. For example, if I were a smoker and I were to try to light a cigarette in a courtroom, that would be a problem. I may not like not being allowed to, but I should obey that rule. Just the same, I may not like how much the government taxes me--but I should still pay my taxes, as you imply. However, if the government were to try to tell me that I MUST teach my children that homosexuality is acceptable, I would refuse it to the bitter end and fight it in court with God on my side--because at that point, man's law directly rebels against God by trying to make me do the same.

  12. Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    One doesn't have to like a Law, one must merely obey it.

    So when will the NYPD obey the law in issuing pistol permits to all who are not statutorily barred from owning pistols?

  13. Alina
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    "One doesn't have to like a Law, one must merely obey it." When a human law is in direct conflict with God's laws, we are not required to obey it. We must be willing to accept the consequences of disobeying it (while standing up for our legal rights), but God's Law is more important than human law. Look at Martin Luther King. This is issue in which peaceful civil disobedience is in order. Hats off to the courageous clerk!

  14. Barb
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Michael Ejercito, haven't you heard? Only traditional marriage supporters must obey the law. Gay extremists and gun grabbers are exempt.

  15. Vickie Drake
    Posted September 18, 2011 at 2:59 am | Permalink

    Where does the law say that this particular individual have to personally issue those marriage licenses? I would guess that the law only says that the marriage licenses must be issued! Why should anyone be concerned with the arrangements that the City made to accomplish this task?

  16. Posted September 18, 2011 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Michael Ejercito, haven't you heard? Only traditional marriage supporters must obey the law. Gay extremists and gun grabbers are exempt.

    This reminds me of this blog post .

    Currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is Peruta v. San Diego, in which plaintiffs challenge the San Diego Sheriff’s refusal to issue concealed handgun carry permits to ordinary persons who wish to carry handguns for lawful self-defense.

  17. Barb
    Posted September 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Michael, I also keep up with 2A issues, brought to you by the same chimps that want to crush 1A.

  18. Drew
    Posted September 19, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    What the NOM Blog has conveniently left out is that Ms. Belforti refused to sign the license and then told the two women to talk to the Deputy Clerk. The problem is, this town does not have a deputy clerk!

  19. Posted September 19, 2011 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    What the NOM Blog has conveniently left out is that Ms. Belforti refused to sign the license and then told the two women to talk to the Deputy Clerk. The problem is, this town does not have a deputy clerk!

    Those two women now know how pistol-permit applicants in NYC feel.