Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rights Collide as Town Clerk Sidesteps Role in Gay Marriages
NY Slimes ^ | 9/27/11 | THOMAS KAPLAN

Posted on 09/28/2011 2:45:23 AM PDT by markomalley

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: bishopromney; homonaziagenda; homonazism; homosexualagenda; homosexualism; homotyranny; nyslimes; nytimesagenda; relgiousliberty; religiousfreedom; religiouspersecution; romney2decide4u; romney2decide4u4ever; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: csense

Bottom line, these women want to force this woman out of her job because she has a religious aversion to their lifestyle.

She has every right to have her job and she has every right to have a religious aversion to their depravity.

The city made legally allowed, reasonable accommodations to issue marriage licenses. These women are making it an issue because this clerk had the audacity to voice her religious beliefs.

That is the long and short of this entire story!


41 posted on 09/28/2011 6:54:16 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
This woman has a right to stand her ground. and I say, good for her!

KLBJ in Austin has a topic about gay "rights" today. One lady called in and talked about their trip to a movie theater last weekend. She and her husband were celebrating their 30th wedding anniversary and two women started kissing. She made a comment of "Look at those two lesbians kissing". She and her husband were asked to leave.

42 posted on 09/28/2011 7:06:00 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Dear God, thanks for the rain, but please let it rain more in Texas. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: csense

Do you or have you ever lived in New York? (I have - that’s why this ticks me off so much)

Her supervisors stabbed her in the back. The policy, if applied uniformly, fits easily within the boundaries of the law. The lesbian pair demanded an exception from policy, and the clerk’s supervisors appear to have not sided strongly with established policy.

She did not relegate it to another “entity”. A policy that marriage licenses are signed by appointment only and gave responsibility for fulfilling those appointments to a senior member of the clerk’s staff. The clerk herself and the clerk’s staff are (or should be) the same legal entity, as the position is not considered to be an individual, but an office.

It is also possible that the courts themselves decided they knew better, and disallowed the policy argument.

The reason for the policy is the first amendment issue. Therefore, if the policy argument falls flat, one argues the reason behind the policy.

I’m not ashamed to admit I grew up in New York State, but it’s getting close.


43 posted on 09/28/2011 7:07:55 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: csense
There's an old saying...we get the government we deserve.

Your arguments completely ignores the John Adams quote which I posted earlier: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I think we can agree that our moral and religious compass is completely out of whack when we are arguing that people actively engaging in immoral actions seem to have more rights than those who are taking a moral stand on their religious beliefs.

More importantly, you should know the entire quote from Alexis de Tocqueville. He said, "...in a democracy, we get the government we deserve." We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Representative Democracy. Which means that these people are supposed to go and represent the wills and wishes of the people they represent. However, as I stated before, in every state where the direct democracy option (ballot initiative - where your "we deserve the government we get" comes into play), same-sex marriage has FAILED!

It has only been implemented where the representatives have gone AGAINST the overwhelming will of the people or where the judicial branches have re-written the laws to allow rights that never existed.
44 posted on 09/28/2011 7:15:07 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Vide
I don't care how many wives Mitt Romney has, as long as he's faithful to them.

Well, it's good that you don't care about polygamy because make no mistake, it's coming, and there's not a damm thing anyone can do about. The simple reason is this, Polygamy is logically inferred from same sex marriage.

Consider:

Traditional mariage is the union of a man and a woaman. It is therefore based on dissimilarity, gender. Since there are only two genders, male and female, then the qualitative infers the quantitative. If you alter the qualitative, you also alter the quantitative. Gay marriage is based on similarity, and therefore, the qulitative yields a quantity that is variable since there is no inherent limiting factor.

To say that gay marriage should be limited to two people is completely and undeniably arbitrary without any rational reason whatsoever.

45 posted on 09/28/2011 7:19:50 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

And that applies to my statement how?


46 posted on 09/28/2011 7:19:58 AM PDT by j.argese (You may think you've won the day, in the end you will surely lose the important race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
She and her husband were asked to leave.

It would have taken an army to drag me and my wife out of that theater!

We MUST start demanding that we are allowed to use our own words and thoughts! This is thought-police! This is them changing the words we are allowed to use in public!

No one has a right to not be offended! If you get offended or hurt from someones words, then you CHOSE to get offended or hurt!

One of my favorite lines and scenes from any movie comes from "Roadhouse." When Patrick Swayze is telling them to ignore what people say. One of the guys ask him what if they call my momma a whore? And he was laughing at the thought and the words that he just stated! Then Swayze answers with, "Is she?" And then those exact same words made the guy mad! You see, he CHOSE to get angry over the same words he just used!
47 posted on 09/28/2011 7:21:15 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Such nice looking girls....

The town clerk should fight it, as her Constitutional rights are being violated, not least of which is Article1:9 re ex post facto laws.

Don´t give up.


48 posted on 09/28/2011 7:27:38 AM PDT by onedoug (If)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
This is thought-police!

I agree. There are some very disturbing news articles here today. That one abouf facebook tracking is one. A caller to the local talk show said he found FB tracking files in his TurboTax folder.

49 posted on 09/28/2011 7:30:20 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Dear God, thanks for the rain, but please let it rain more in Texas. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
It’s not up to a civil servant to determine which laws she will follow, repulsive as the associated action’s request may be.

You have stated in the above sentence that she was not following the law. That's not true. She just wasn't following the law in the manner that the lesbian pair expected.

The law requires the office of the clerk to process the licenses. It does NOT specify an exact manner or time frame, and therefore a standard policy that requires an appointment with an individual on the clerk's office staff is a reasonable approach to satisfaction of the actual requirements of the law - even if it isn't the expectation of the applicants.

That is how the existence of this standard office policy is related to your original post.

50 posted on 09/28/2011 7:31:40 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
...as the position is not considered to be an individual, but an office.

I sympathize with everything you said, but your quote above is the heart of the problem. If she was the only one there, who at the time, was authorized to perform this duty, then she should have, distasteful as it was.

51 posted on 09/28/2011 7:52:59 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: csense

So you don’t agree that the standard policy of requiring an appointment is legally valid?

That is the crux of the matter. The pair of women were in so much of a hurry they could not be bothered to comply with the required appointment making. Therefore, your answer is the woman should break the clerk’s office policy (of requiring an appointment) and sign the license.

Either the clerk’s office can require an appointment or not. If you do not believe they can establish such a policy for everyone, please say so. But to require the clerk’s office to not follow its own policies because of the status of the patron is inherently discriminatory.

That is exactly what you are arguing for, absent your issuance of a blanket indictment of the appointment policy.


52 posted on 09/28/2011 8:11:16 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

I understand your point. It’s no different than a municipality listing the time when a dog license can be procured or a recycling center being open.
It’s also a newsrag inserting an editorial statement, the town clerk’s religious beliefs, into a story about a marriage license. Again, an unnecessary piece of information.
Finally, would the marriage license have been granted if the couple were heterosexual? That information is not provided either.
My comment was regarding one aspect of the story, the clerk summoning a deputy to fulfill a task which was required by her position. You addressed a different issue, unrelated to my original response. If said couple were to appear at the proper time to acquire the license, one should presume a reasonable time frame based upon the laws of that state.


53 posted on 09/28/2011 8:29:24 AM PDT by j.argese (You may think you've won the day, in the end you will surely lose the important race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MortMan; csense

I was about to make the exact same argument. Talk about a statist point of view; csense not only wants Albany to force same-sex marriage on the unwilling people of New York, they also want the state to be able to write the operating manual for each local town, city and county!

Csense isn’t happy that the local town has implemented the law; csense is upset that the local town hasn’t bent to the COMPLETE will of these mentally-challenged people.

If you don’t like the way that office is being operated, then run for office or get hired on to be the office manager, etc... but until that time, neither you, nor these diseased woman, have a right to DEMAND that they change their hours and change their method of operation, simply because a new law is written.


54 posted on 09/28/2011 8:31:25 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Such nice looking girls....

My guess is the older one on the right has the money and calls the shots. The younger one looks nice enough and pleasant enough for most men the same age as her. The younger one foolishly allowed herself to get sucked into this lesbian relationship. She gave up on men


55 posted on 09/28/2011 8:34:41 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
My comment was regarding one aspect of the story, the clerk summoning a deputy to fulfill a task which was required by her position.

A task which the deputy has been fulfilling in the past; therefore, completely within the rights of the clerk to do. You make it seem like she simply pulled someone out of the air and said, "I am not doing my job; you do it."

Her actions, and those of the town to create a reasonable accommodation, were completely legal and within the rights of the town to do so.

This is only a story because these mental-diseased women are also attention whores! They are DEMANDING that this clerk bend to their will! Last I checked, the law does not say everyone must agree to your lifestyle and yet, these women think it does.

What the homosexual/lesbian people do not understand is that getting a license does not make people agree to, nor accept, your depravity. People say you can't legislate morality, but apparently people think you should be allowed to legislate IMMORALITY!
56 posted on 09/28/2011 8:39:32 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

If the clerk herself were the only available person at the time of a duly made appointment, then your position would have merit. The issue with that argument, however, is that the lesbian pair decided they had the right to skip the making of an appointment.

With regard to the hypothetical hetero couple, ALL licenses required an appointment with the deputy clerk, according to the article.

My argument is not “unrelated” to your original post. I am pointing out that your argument requires that the appointment requirement be waived or deemed illegal to be valid.


57 posted on 09/28/2011 8:43:37 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
So you don’t agree that the standard policy of requiring an appointment is legally valid?

Depends....can you make an appointment with her?

I'm assuming that this "standard" policy is a recent one, itself predicated upon a refusal to discharge her duties because of personal opinions. Counsel is going to have a field day with this. You may not like the law, and I may not like the law, but it is the law nonetheless, and she is a public servant.

58 posted on 09/28/2011 8:45:44 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
Now you're just being inflammatory and personal. I'll take my leave before it starts getting ridiculous.
59 posted on 09/28/2011 8:50:10 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: csense
Now you're just being inflammatory and personal. I'll take my leave before it starts getting ridiculous.

I ask, how am I being inflammatory? Personal - yes, because all of our opinions are on a personal basis - but, inflammatory?

Your argument has been set straight every single time, but you continue to dislike the way the office implemented the law. There was NOTHING illegal about the manner in which this town implemented the law, nor was the clerk out of bounds in getting a deputy, who typically handles these licenses.

You and these lesbians simply do not like the WAY the law was implemented in this town. You are more than happy to accommodate these women in need of mental help, but you are not willing to accommodate the rights of this clerk. Please, before you depart, I truly would like you to explain to me how that was inflammatory.
60 posted on 09/28/2011 8:57:38 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson