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 ...
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! :)