Skip to comments.N.Y. town clerk: I won't sign gay wedding license
Posted on 06/30/2011 8:12:21 PM PDT by fwdude
New Yorks gay weddings victory lap has not extended to all parts of the Empire State, with a rural town clerk determined to not sign any same-sex marriage licenses.
Barbara MacEwen, the town clerk in upstate Volney who is responsible for signing marriage licenses in the town, said shes morally opposed to same-sex weddings and does not intend to affix her signature to any marriage documents for gay or lesbian couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
As far as I can tell, she has every right not to sign any document she doesn’t feel like. Good for her.
God bless her and protect her in every way. Amen.
Yes. God Bless her. I’m sure she knows exactly what she is in for. That is moral courage.
LGBT activists are going to make an example of her... may God protect this woman.
God bless her. I wish we had more brave souls on our side like this woman.
She’s got more testosterone in her eyelashes than all 4 of those traitorous, gutless tasbards RINO’s in NY combined. Voting for this perverted abomination marriage of anal reamers. They disgust me to no end—the RINO’s that is.
The comments at the site against the woman talk about how dare she ignore the law. Isn’t Zero ignoring the law about deporting illegal aliens? What about Zero’s ignoring of law? I’ve read reports over the years of some demo something-or-other who proudly said they will not enforce such-and-such law because they don’t believe it is right. Democrats, I call you hypocrites (unfortunately, they don’t care).
Yes, they will viciously attack her, traveling hundreds of miles out of their way with homo-lawyers in tow to make sure she bows before the idol of Molech.
To me, what defies rationale is that the homo-activists attack people like this who PROVE that homosexual "marriage" does, in fact, affect other people. It would be extremely gracious and good public relations practice to just let people like her who have strong objections to this radical change in civilization to have her way instead of pounding their agenda home in every corner of society. They are altogether evil, seeking out good in every nook of this country to destroy it.
Actually what she needs is a contingency of FR supporters to set up a perimeter patrol around her residence and all of us to bring our concealed weapons and permits and plenty of hollow points as well. The gloves need to come off. The freaks will stop at nothing and the mainstream media will support them a hundred percent.
Good on her!!!!
I find the comments section funny. She’s ‘striking’ because of her beliefs.....and the homos are whining because they are ‘tax payers’. Funny, that. ;-)
Let them try that when the unions are striking. Bunch of f#ckwits.
Unless she can prove that the job description gives her the right to arbitrarily withold her signature because an applicant is homosexual, or black, or has only one eye, or walks funny, she ought to get herself into another line of work that doesn't offend her moral sensibilities.
I fully support her right to object.
But like the man said, you get paid to perform a given job, not to hold a moral position about the people involved. Best of luck to her.
I'm sure she has moral courage, but I don't believe she has any idea of the magnitude of absolutely vile, violent vindictiveness of the homo-left. She needs massive support, and I hope NY FReepers in her area are on board.
“As far as I can tell, she has every right not to sign any document she doesnt feel like. Good for her.”
Any act that requires permission from the State to engage in makes it a privilege, not a right. And the privileges the State grants it can also take away.
When she was elected by the people in her community - implying she shared the community's values - at the time that she signed on for this position, the firm foundation of real marriage was already in existence. This is effectively changing her job description in the middle of her term. She wasn't elected to "marry" two men or two women.
If what you say is true, then she may be able to hold onto her job in spite of her objection.
Can you say on what basis you hold your opinion? I am unaware of the applicable laws in her town regarding the legal responsibilities of the town clerk, but perhaps you are.
This town clerk is doomed. She and her family are going to be threatened, if not actually assaulted. And in the end she WILL lose her job. It’s the Gaystapo way.
Amen. These freaks are militant. It’s alllllll about the $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Sorry if it came off that way, as it wasn't meant to be patronizing at all. I have strong moral sensibilities and I don't find the phrase troublesome.
What I meant was, I am concerned that unless she can find a legal basis for maintaining her objection, she may find herself out of a job. That's not uncommon -- I know vegetarians who refuse to handle meat, and were dismissed from jobs where meat handling was required, for example.
> When she was elected by the people in her community - implying she shared the community's values - at the time that she signed on for this position, the firm foundation of real marriage was already in existence. This is effectively changing her job description in the middle of her term. She wasn't elected to "marry" two men or two women.
I understand and agree.
I'm only noting that, given that the law is the law until it's overturned, she may find her position untenable, which would be a shame.
I support her objection, as I said before.
I am sorry to say that I share your pessimism in that regard. Unless she can find a legal basis to sustain her objection, she may not be able to hold onto her position.
> She and her family are going to be threatened, if not actually assaulted.
I pray that does not come to pass. But again I fear you may be right. I have seen the fury of the homosexual activists (I live near Ithaca, NY, home to a great many of them) and they will work hard to overpower this 75-yr old woman.
On the positive side, I'm proud to say that upstate NY is also home to a great many conservatives and the small towns still hold moral values very strongly. I'm sure she has the support of her neighbors and townspeople, regardless of the media circus which is sure to erupt.
There are a very few times that civil disobedience is called for. This is definitely one of those times.
I hope that the price she pays is not steep. The forces massing against her are considerable and unscrupulous. I admire her courage.
Because of her disobedience, she will be able to hold her head up high and answer to a greater Authority that she held to her beliefs and stood firm for them. And THAT is what counts in the long run.
I think the left will soon try to bar any conservative from any government employment.
I applaud and agree with her stance. However, I fear that she will be publicly attacked, marginalized, and fired.
So you would be perfectly fine recognizing a homo-"marriage" performed by a homo "church?"
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
COURAGE! SHE HAS IT! This is exactly what we need. Civil disobedience. More and more and more and more!
That would be up to that Church. As for marriage, the State should have NO jurisdiction over that covenant.
She needs to find the most powerful, staunchly conservative legal team possible; perhaps Liberty Council or ADF. At the least they could possibly stall any legal action against her for several years, until any possible backlash could be established. One Freeper is confident in a constitutional amendment referendum being brought before NY voters.
So every person and employer would then be at liberty to decide on a whim the marital status of each employee for purposes of providing insurance and other spousal benefits? A Catholic employer doesn't have to recognize the marriage of a baptist employee for benefits? A Methodist judge would just distribute the assets of a diseased to the children without regard to a living spouse because they were married in the Catholic Church and the judge doesn't agree with Catholicism?
Absolutely correct, dayglored!
Actually, in her shoes, I'd refuse my signature - and then tender my resignation. I think that that would be the only consistent action possible.
Well I think what this woman is saying is that natural law supersedes man’s law and she is going to obey natural law. In that I completely agree with her. The state can pass all the laws it wants but the people will only willingly obey natural law NOT man’s law.
As for the Catholic church and other churches. One church wouldn't have to recognize or issue a anything to someone of not their faith. Kinda the point.
Well, overall I agree that the government has little or no business approving or disapproving or otherwise messing around with people's marriages.
But there is an argument in favor of such action, which stems from the presumed role of the government in regulating society, in this case providing encouragement or support to traditional (heterosexual, child-producing) marriages. This is of course because the continuation of our society requires it.
In general I don't like the government regulating private activity that doesn't interfere with normal functioning of society. I would be much happier overall if government simply was not in the marriage business at all. Marriage is the business of a religion, IMO. And that includes the Atheists as well -- if they wish to marry, great, have a party, whatever.
Unfortunately, from what I have observed, homosexual "marriages" are not very good at helping society continue smoothly. They are more prone to nasty breakups and infidelities than heterosexual marriages. And at the root, they cannot, by definition, produce children. Any children in a homosexual marriage necessarily came from a heterosexual relationship.
I feel great sadness for any child caught up in a nasty divorce. I can't imagine the awful confusion that would result from the additional burden of not being able to tell one unhappy parent from the other. Where are the role models, in such a mess??
The basic question for your position is: who is married?
This woman is an elected official. She doesn’t answer to anyone except the voters. If she doesn’t want to sign a license, I cannot see were she would be in jeopardy except in her next election.
If this was just another some elected official who didn’t feel like doing something, say a sheriff who wouldn’t respond to emergency calls, would they be in any sort of trouble from a higher authority? No. Just the voters.
Besides whatever religious connotations the institution of marriage has for you, there's no denying that it is also a LEGAL institution, which requires official recognition and sanction from the government if it is to be protected.
What about forcing a witness to testify against her "husband?" If there is no LEGAL definition of marriage (because the govt. "keeps its nose" out), then how should the Court recognize a witness's legal right to refuse to testify against a spouse?
That is only one of countless other examples where the state "needs" to know and/or needs to be involved.
The government doesn’t “regulate” marriage, it simply records the act and holds the participants to the contract accountable to the contract to the extent that children are involved. The participants have unlimited liberty to conduct the wedding and marriage however they see fit. No imposed regulation involved. No imposed renewal fee. No imposed training or proficiency testing required to be eligible. Simple.
Well, yes, except for the course of civil disobedience. In this instance, I support her right to object and try to overturn the law which she finds unsupportable.
She'll most likely lose that fight, and lose her job. But I applaud her fortitude in making a show of it, against a huge army.
You know that drawing of the hawk descending upon a mouse, talons out and ready, and the mouse looks up and gives the bird the finger? I think there's a parallel here. Although I'm sure the clerk is too polite a lady to actually give anybody the finger! :)
I pray the Lord bless, keep and protect this lady for standing up for what’s Godly and right.
“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29
My prayer for this lady and the righteous taking a stand against the wicked Sodomites:
“Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Psalm 91:9-12
Yup she is toast, as are many more tens of thousands of Christian employees in NY state. War is hell.
Her practical dilemma is that her job is dependent on man's law. But in the long run, losing (or resigning) her job is nothing compared to forsaking her moral beliefs. She is holding steady there, and I admire her courage.
The article doesn’t mention it, but I pray that she has a faith in God that will be unshakable. Otherwise, she really is toast.
Agreed and me too.
Agreed and me too.
It takes supernatural courage to stand up to the Gaystapo.
Buy that Lady a car...
> No imposed renewal fee.
Maybe like renewing a driver's license, every few years there should be an eye test. :)
> No imposed training or proficiency testing required to be eligible.
More's the pity. Some days I think there ought to be a minimum requirement in "how to be kind". That one thing would save so much heartache and hurt. Oh well.
While many were preoccupied with the fallacy of “marriage equality”, here’s an example of the real threat of Marxist oppression in wait.
It’s not about homosexual unity, it’s about persecuting those that don’t support it.
It is essential the town clerk stares down every threat against her conviction; otherwise, she concedes to the tenets of Communism.
The govt should get the hell out of the marriage business.