The New York Times tells the story of an upstate New York clerk involved in a "test case" lawsuit filed by two lesbian women who flew in from Miami for a marriage license and are now saying that the clerk's choice to delegate that task to someone else in the office is unacceptable:
Rose Marie Belforti is a 57-year-old cheese maker, the elected town clerk in this sprawling Finger Lakes farming community and a self-described Bible-believing Christian. She believes that God has condemned homosexuality as a sin, so she does not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses; instead, she has arranged for a deputy to issue all marriage licenses by appointment.
But when a lesbian couple who own a farm near here showed up at the town hall last month, the women said they were unwilling to wait.
Now Ms. Belforti is at the heart of an emerging test case, as national advocacy groups look to Ledyard for an answer to how the state balances a religious freedom claim by a local official against a civil rights claim by a same-sex couple.
... Ms. Belforti is one of several town clerks who have said the state’s Marriage Equality Act, the measure approved in June that legalized same-sex marriage in New York, violates their religious beliefs. Two clerks resigned in July rather than comply with the law.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, who made same-sex marriage a priority of his first year in office, has expressed little sympathy for clerks who object to the law. “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose,” he said this summer. And the State Health Department issued a memorandum to clerks that refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples would be a misdemeanor.
24 Comments
This is utterly ridiculous. It is clear that homosexual activists don't care about First Amendment rights and apparently neither does the Governor of New York. You must accept me, validate me, and violate your beliefs because I'm a homosexual and I'm better than you. That's what this really is.
Public servants aren't gods. You shouldn't have to pass their personal religious test before they'll do their job. That's not religious freedom. In fact, it's the exact opposite.
If marriage corruption advocates had their way we'd just tear up the Constitution and start over. It's so old, doncha know. It would be humorous to see what their new improved Constitution looked like. Or maybe we wouldn't need a new one...the law would be whatever they said it was on any given day.
Norm, what part of civil marriage has no relation to religion do you not understand?
Just playing devil's advocate
Sorry Norm, Barb, and the rest of the gang - Somehow protection from not doing your job isn't part of the Bill of Rights...or located in any part of the Constitution. It's quite simple - she handle the marriage licenses as she was hired to do, or lose her vocation to someone who is more than happy to be employed. These women are not asking for acceptance, they are asking the clerk do her job, deferring to the 'by-appointment-only' deputy is not it.
So, part of the new improved marriage corruption advocate Constitution would command that everyone do what they're told, whether or not it contradicts their personal ethics.
A soldier would shoot civilians b/c their commander ordered them to do so.
A bank clerk would steal money b/c her manager told her to do it.
No personal responsibility for actions. No moral objections. Just follow orders. Sounds like a wonderful world.
Maybe the whole idea of "equal treatment" under the law is too much for NOM to wrap their minds around.
Oh Barb, you make it too easy. It's like those little "one of these things doesn't fit" questions they give school children (your equivalent would be dog, cat, and couch). 1. Soldier shoots civilian (a crime), 2. Bank clerk steals money (a crime), 3. Town clerk doesn't issue marriage license (not doing her job). Thanks for playing, Barb.
It is you who miss the point Evo. These all involve ethical decisions, something you may not understand.
Barb, you seem to want to use the word 'ethics' to describe your intolerance towards two loving individuals to share a (legally-permitted) couple status. Let's call a spade a spade here Barb - it's not "ethics" you're calling for, it's religiously justified discrimination. These marriages are hardly an ethical equivalent to a soldier shooting a civilian. You see, when someone is deliberately, maliciously shot, it hurts. They bleed. Many die. When gay people get married, gay people get married. Your marriage does not suffer. Your children won't want to become gay all of a sudden (unless of course, they were born that way and rejoice in the undeniable, growing acceptance). If a gay couple's happiness pains you as much as a bullet wound, I'm sorry to say it Barb, you'd better stock up on the painkillers.
Right and wrong are not entitled to equal treatment under the law,and the public interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships is harmed by treating same-sex relationships,whose exstence serves no public interest,as if they were of as much worth.We do not need to be desensitized to the pain we should all feel at "gay couples" refusing to repent of their unjustiifable relationships,but to resist their demands until they surrender.
Apparently the NYPD gets to pick and choose, as they deny pistol permits to those who are not statutorily banned from possessing pistols.
Hey New York, how about those Democrat legislators? Still happy that you elected them? Enjoy your freak show, NY.
Easy Louis, I've read your works, you've got enough blanket statements in your repertoire to cover Manhattan.
And "repent" - a very intriguing word for a self-proclaimed non-religious person.
Silly girls. So intent on shoving their morality down the throats of everyone in their path.
No. This issue of clerks (elected staff) refusing to extend a marriage certificate, personally, to a same-sex couple, is a little more complex than it first appears. It is completely a civil issue, because NY happens to have rules of procedure that support this elected clerk's refusal. Do you think this elected clerk would refuse if there wasn't some discretion. This clerk is still extending the majority of the marriage licenses, but is simply delegating some cases to a deputy (not elected staff?). It is very interesting that the State has tried to threaten the clerks, but there's a loop home Gov. Cuomo hadn't thought about... - did a sloppy job. Clerks are good at reading the code, because that's their expertise - to follow the exact wording of the law. Obviously, this clerk sees a loophole, and is standing for her rights. It is very American not to buckle to pressure, and to know one's rights to the letter. After all, no matter how the law changes, we are all required to know it - an impossibility, of course. But clerks are trained in the law, before they can be clerks. Very interesting.....
errata: there's a loop hole Gov. Cuomo hadn't thought about...
Oh spare me. Job descriptions change. Millions of people have had their job change on them and they sucked it up. They didn't take out press releases and whine (and get you morons to support them).
EvolveAlready,people who think the Infinitely First Cause of all that is founds official fan clubs for itself or writes books don't have a monopoly on realizing that those who do wrong should be sorry.
While I would have hoped for a better outcome, there is no crime in being discourteous, and not even being sorry about it, sorry as that may seem.
The sorriest bit of all is the gall of bringing in lawyers and threats.
If she is unwilling or unable to do the job that the State is paying her to do, she must go. Would she deny a visibly pregnant woman a marriage license because her religion does not believes in pre-marital sex? Or if she knew that the couple was using birth control or had an abortion at some point? If her job is in conflict with her religious view then she should not get a job with the public, where she has to deal with all walks of life and get a job in some religious or anti-equality entity. Perhaps NOM has an opening?
Civil disobedience is considered heroic by those who oppose the laws being obstructed.I don't belong to any religion,but as a public policy issue I would not be complicit in the treatment of any same-sex relationship as if it were of as much worth as a marriage.I'd resign as a town or county clerk rather than obey any order to do so (and I have considered running for both offices,I am a former Democratic candidate for town supervisor).
"The sorriest bit of all is the gall of bringing in lawyers and threats."
Bringing a legal claim is what responsible citizens do when they believe their rights have been abused. Why does your side demonize ours for simply exercising this right?