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 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 09/28/2011 2:45:27 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Go ahead and sign off—it’s like carrying Monopoly money in your wallet anyway—it just ain’t real.

The DOMA is still the law of the land and when a conservative is in the WH,the DOJ will do it’s duty and uphold it—so the homosexuals are just playing house.


2 posted on 09/28/2011 2:52:35 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Yer it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

queers bullying for more lawsuits


3 posted on 09/28/2011 3:00:47 AM PDT by SF_Redux (Sarah stands for accountablility and personal responsiblity, democrats can't live with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Not to mention, that when you’re working for a secular organization like the government, you are required to fulfill your secular duties, like signing whatever documentations you don’t care to sign.

If not, you have every right to live as you wish, elsewhere.


4 posted on 09/28/2011 3:01:53 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
The DOMA is still the law of the land and when a conservative is in the WH,the DOJ will do it’s duty and uphold it

Did you forget this from earlier in the year? Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA.

5 posted on 09/28/2011 3:06:43 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Clever way to get rid of the observant Christians in government,isn’t it?

Their plan all along.


6 posted on 09/28/2011 3:07:22 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Yer it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I’m not in favor of gay marriage either, but if gay marriage is legal, and her duty is to sign this document, then she should either sign it, or resign.


7 posted on 09/28/2011 3:08:41 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csense
I’m not in favor of gay marriage either, but if gay marriage is legal, and her duty is to sign this document, then she should either sign it, or resign.

Or stand up for what she believes and make them fire her.

8 posted on 09/28/2011 3:12:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: csense

This is a contrived lawsuit: the clerk didn’t refuse , the couple ‘didn’t want to wait’. Therefore , there was a legal accomodation to protect the rights of the gay couple , as well as the clerk.


9 posted on 09/28/2011 3:13:21 AM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (Move Along ,... Nothing to see here ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
alt

Deirdre DiBiaggio, left, and Katie Carmichael argue that state law requires all clerks to give marriage licenses to gay couples.

10 posted on 09/28/2011 3:14:05 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Exactly so !! ~Clever way to get rid of the observant Christians in government,isn’t it?

Their plan all along.


11 posted on 09/28/2011 3:15:26 AM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (Move Along ,... Nothing to see here ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Or stand up for what she believes and make them fire her.

I suppose she could, and I suppose they will.

12 posted on 09/28/2011 3:19:14 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: csense
It's like a Christian doctor in a military hospital if abortions are suddenly allowed there. If he won't murder babies he should resign.
The anti-Christian Leftist agenda at work.
You have a right to practice your faith without restriction,the constitution guarantees that—but if you do it where we don't want you to you don't get arrested,just fired.
Validate my homosexual travesty or resign—never mind you held this job for decades before the Left installed this abomination of a law.
LEAVE Christian, we have atheists to replace you!
13 posted on 09/28/2011 3:19:16 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Yer it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Of course. It’s all about trying to shape society they way they want without regard for the consequences of doing so.

That’s also the Dems allowed gays to openly serve in the military, to destroy the tendency for the military to vote Republican as much as possible. Who cares about military readiness.


14 posted on 09/28/2011 3:25:40 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Sign it, stamp it, say "next" and move on.

Do not give them another excuse to draw attention to their perversion.

Treat them just like any other government form, that will piss them off more than anything.

15 posted on 09/28/2011 3:32:34 AM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; All

It’s not up to a civil servant to determine which laws she will follow, repulsive as the associated action’s request may be. I believe the saying is “I don’t pay you to think.” If conscience dictates she can’t perform a duty, she should resign.
This situation is quite different than a priest refusing to give the sacrament or a doctor in a Catholic or other religious hospital refusing to commit an abortion. Throughout history individuals have payed far greater prices for maintaining their convictions.
A solution might, if this were an elected position, for her to resign and then run again with her beliefs in full view. If she were to be re-elected with support of the population, she would be able to claim she represents the will of the voters.


16 posted on 09/28/2011 3:42:04 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 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Would be helpful if the story told the actual amount of time that the signature would be delayed waiting for an appointment with the deputy clerk.

I expect the time was minimal, hence it was purposel;y omitted by the Times.


17 posted on 09/28/2011 3:43:03 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
The New York Times has printed pictures of homosexual couples on their weddings and announcements page for years now. What always strikes me is how frequently these couples, whether male or female, resemble each other.

Didn't Narcissus fall in love with his own reflection in the water?

18 posted on 09/28/2011 3:44:31 AM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt
This is a contrived lawsuit: the clerk didn’t refuse , the couple ‘didn’t want to wait’. Therefore , there was a legal accomodation to protect the rights of the gay couple , as well as the clerk.

Well, she did refuse, and there's no getting around that. Second, I'm not sure how this protects the rights of the gay couple. If another coupple, heterosexual, were to walk in and had the document signed, while the gay couple was waiting, would you consider that equal treatment under the law.

That said, How far does ths priciple extend. If signing or stamping the document is equivalent to moral acceptance, then what about the office itself. How does she morally distance herself from that.

19 posted on 09/28/2011 3:52:31 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
An honest and educated person knows ....
20 posted on 09/28/2011 4:08:07 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
LEAVE Christian, we have atheists to replace you!

Yup, that's about the size of it, and without a dominant culture, it's only gonna get worse.

It wasn't our legal system, oour political system, or even the Constitution that kept all this stuff at bay. It was a common culture with common morals that did it. Those things are gone now, and this is what it breeds.

21 posted on 09/28/2011 4:11:41 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: csense
It's a matter of tolerance, endorsement and subsidy.

By now most people tolerate homosexual relationships: apart from some fringe elements like the Westboro Baptists.

Now gays want society's endorsement: in the form of a recognition of their marriage. The "gay housekeeping seal of approval".

Next they want subsidy in the form of spouse benefits and immigration rights for gay "brides".

Personally, I'm happy to tolerate monogamous gay couples in stable relationships. I don't approve of their arrangements - but I disapprove more strongly of their promiscuous co-sexualists. But, I am damned if I'll subsidize them

I think the best compromise is to support gay civil unions. We (society) can give qualified approval of more stable and less self-destructive lifestyles, employers can fairly treat employees with regards to private spouse benefits, and questions like immigration and adoption can be addressed separately.

22 posted on 09/28/2011 4:23:03 AM PDT by Vide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

We have a Lesbian couple near me. They “married in Mass.,because it isn’t legal here. They may think they are accpeted, but in actuality they are the subject of jokes and laughter.

Their marriage is merely a sham, there is no marriage, just a joke.


23 posted on 09/28/2011 4:32:45 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vide
I'm happy to tolerate monogamous gay couples in stable relationships. Well, you said it yourself: Tolerance, endorsement, subsidy. Each one gives way to the other and each generation, so to speak, will play their part, like you are doing here.

Homosexuality is either wrong, or it is. It is either moral, or it is not. There are no in betweens. They know that, and it is about time everyone else admitted it also.

24 posted on 09/28/2011 4:36:05 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: csense

No she shouldn’t afterall I think her stance for right (against immoral behavior) and for God and the.. 2nd distantly the 1st Amendment protect her from having to do this!


25 posted on 09/28/2011 4:50:03 AM PDT by JSDude1 (December 18, 2010 the Day the radical homosexual left declared WAR on the US Military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
The First Amendment doesn't protect her, and it can't in principle. It is not the Constitution which protects a culture, it is the culture itself which preserves the Constitution. That is why John Adams said:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Wherein it is understood that government is constituted of the people, and therefore, also, their morals which are derived from religion, and in particular, the Judeo/Christian religion.

26 posted on 09/28/2011 5:08:24 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

LOL, it’s like all the homos complaining about not being able to discus their weekends in the office. Who the hell wants to hear about that nasty shit anyway. If a homo came up to me and started talking about what he did over the weekend I’d walk away.


27 posted on 09/28/2011 5:17:11 AM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: csense
For me, part of the issue is utility of morality.

Who benefits from stable, monogamous relationships?

I think both society at large and the couple themselves benefit. Because of those societal benefits I'm happy to see gay couple given my implicit qualified approval in the form of civil unions. In the end though, gay couples are getting a greater benefit from their stability than society is.

Stable heterosexual couples bring greater societal benefits through child-rearing. That role deserves and justifies unqualified approval in the form of legal marriage.

"I disapprove of what they do, but approve of the way they do it."

28 posted on 09/28/2011 5:46:06 AM PDT by Vide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: csense
Second, I'm not sure how this protects the rights of the gay couple. If another coupple, heterosexual, were to walk in and had the document signed, while the gay couple was waiting, would you consider that equal treatment under the law.

That will not happen. The arrangement which was made setup a schedule for ALL marriage licenses to be signed by the deputy, with a set, posted scheduled of days available and hours of operation.

Last I checked, there is no requirement for city, town, etc... offices to be available 24 hours a day just so that lesbian and homosexual couples can get married.

In my little town, we can only get safety/building inspection permits issued on Mondays and Tuesdays. The city inspectors only work on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Inconvenient at times, but not a travesty as this couple is making it to be!
29 posted on 09/28/2011 5:59:22 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: csense

If ALL marriage licenses are signed by a deputy, by appointment, why is this a “rights” case? Isn’t the homosexual pair breaking a rule in place for everyone by requiring her to service them without making an appointment?

I swear Shakespeare has a valid point.


30 posted on 09/28/2011 6:02:10 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

The established rule is that ALL marriage licenses are signed by appointment. The pair refused to wait for an appointment.

Did this little fact escape your notice?


31 posted on 09/28/2011 6:04:28 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vide
Who benefits from stable, monogamous relationships?

From what fundamental principle then do you derive monogamy.

32 posted on 09/28/2011 6:06:00 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: csense
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Therein lies the problems of today!

Even people on here are telling her to quit because it is the law. The law which was written doesn't jibe with the will and moral compass of most of the people! This has been demonstrated in EVERY SINGLE STATE WHERE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WAS ON THE BALLOT! So, to tell this woman to quit because it is the law is completely contrary to where we should be going with this argument!

We the People, especially Judeo-Christian people, have been pushed and pushed and pushed to be removed from the public square. Now is not the time to simply say, oh well, let's go home! Now is the time to push back - we should have been pushing back the entire time! However, our "turn the other check" methods have gotten both sides slapped, a busted lip, a dislocated collar bone and two broken legs! I think we have turned enough checks and it is time to fight for what is right! This woman has a right to stand her ground. and I say, good for her! It is never too late, and no person is too small as to guide the masses when what she is doing is correct!
33 posted on 09/28/2011 6:09:32 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: csense
Well, she did refuse, and there's no getting around that.

Actually, she informed them that they had to make an appointment - which is the rule for ALL marriage licenses.

THEY failed to follow the rules, so naturally you agree she should be punished?

34 posted on 09/28/2011 6:12:45 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It ain’t her job to decide what she will allow.


35 posted on 09/28/2011 6:14:51 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csense
From what fundamental principle then do you derive monogamy.

Good point. I meant non-promiscuity. Maybe "fidelity"? I don't care how many wives Mitt Romney has, as long as he's faithful to them.

36 posted on 09/28/2011 6:15:05 AM PDT by Vide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
That will not happen. The arrangement which was made setup a schedule for ALL marriage licenses to be signed by the deputy, with a set, posted scheduled of days available and hours of operation.

I doubt it's this simple. If the position of Town Clerk allowed her to legally pass these duties on to some other entity within local government as a matter of policy, she wouldn't need a lawyer or the argument that New York is required to accommodate her religious beliefs.

37 posted on 09/28/2011 6:18:59 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Actually, she informed them that they had to make an appointment - which is the rule for ALL marriage licenses.

I'll ask you the same question then. If she was acting within law and the authority of her position as Town Clerk to relegate it to some other entity within local government, then why does she need a lawyer and the argument that the State of New York needs to accomodate her religious beliefs. Why does she need to make a First Amendment argument rather than just simply say she made a policy decison and that's that.

38 posted on 09/28/2011 6:35:58 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: csense
If the position of Town Clerk allowed her to legally pass these duties on to some other entity within local government as a matter of policy...
The deputy was already signing the licenses when she was on break or when she was out of the office. They just made arrangements for the deputy to do this on a regular basis. So, it was completely within the rights of the local government to make such arrangements.

...she wouldn't need a lawyer...
The reason she needs a lawyer is because these mentally-diseased women didn't like the town setting up an hours of operation to accommodate them. They want THIS WOMAN to be forced to sign their license, even though they have no right to demand who signs it or when they operate their hours.

... or the argument that New York is required to accommodate her religious beliefs.
You do realize that all US government offices and US companies are required to make reasonable accommodations for ALL religious beliefs! If I hire a Muslim, knowing he is a Muslim, and I refuse to allow him to practice his five prayers a day, when I can reasonably accommodate him, then I am violating his rights! Companies have lost lawsuits concerning this very thing. Schools have been ordered to allow kids to take breaks to allow these prayers.

Accommodating religion is not a new thing! The only thing new/different is that these disturbed women think they have more rights than someone else. And even worse, they have a bully pulpit called the MSM with which they are allowed to spout their stupidity!
39 posted on 09/28/2011 6:48:08 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
The law which was written doesn't jibe with the will and moral compass of most of the people!

The people who sit in the executive, the legislature and the judiciary weren't born there, and they didn't inherit them either. They were put there, directly and indirectly, by the majority of these so called moral citizens. There's an old saying...we get the government we deserve.

40 posted on 09/28/2011 6:49:58 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 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