Rights Collide as Town Clerk Sidesteps Role in Gay Marriages

NY Slimes ^ | 9/27/11 | THOMAS KAPLAN

[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.

[j.argese]

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.

1. People in Hell want ice water and there are a lot of people in other jobs who don't want to do things either but if it's a requirement of the position, you do it or you move on.

2. Based upon the way the article is written, the appointment system is an accommodation for the clerk and was instituted to suit the clerk's comfort and no other reason.

I base my opinion on the information in the article. I don't live there. I don't know anybody involved in this rhubarb. I based my statement on the belief we are a nation of laws, not of men. If she doesn't like it, resign her position and become an activist. It seems to be the thing to do these days.

[MortMan]

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.

In other words, it does not matter if the policy is the same for all, and it doesn't matter if the policy is in compliance with the law? In the military, a commander who reacts to the enemy exactly as the enemy expects loses every time. In this case, the clerk set up a system to comply with the law that allowed her to also comply with her religious convictions.

But apparently complying in a manner not anticipated by the opposition is the same as non-compliance to some. I vehemently disagree (but try to avoid being disagreeable in such debates).

[MortMan]

So you see the requirement to sign licenses as a personal responsibility or the responsibility of the clerk’s office?

I think the policy of requiring an appointment - which happens to allow this woman to follow her conscience - complies with the law as written. Compliance with the law in a manner different from that envisioned by the law’s supporters is still compliance.

Apparently others, including you, disagree with that position.

[csense]

but you continue to dislike...

You really want to know what I dislike? This notion that somehow, you are morally unclean if, as a county clerk, you process paperwork attesting to the fact that the recipients have followed proper procedure...yet, you retain moral purity if you pass this duty off to someone else while still working in the same office that issues the offending document.

If God judges, as morally evil, every correlation to a particular sin, do you really think it matters when she stands before God and says, "yes, but I didn't handle the paperwork."

[ExTxMarine]

2. Based upon the way the article is written, the appointment system is an accommodation for the clerk and was instituted to suit the clerk's comfort and no other reason.
...I based my statement on the belief we are a nation of laws, not of men...

You might want to learn a thing or two about Federally mandated hiring practices, instead of simply having an opinion. Federal law has ruled that "reasonable accommodations" must be made for employee demands. The actions of the clerk and the office in which she works, are well within the definition of "reasonable accommodations."

You wanting the clerk to do something, when other, completely legal and acceptable, arraignments have been made, is simply not realistic. And more importantly is completely AGAINST your own argument about the "nation of laws," as the Federal law mandates!

[csense]

In other words, it does not matter if the policy is the same for all, and it doesn't matter if the policy is in compliance with the law?

Yet, she needs a lawyer to defend it and the State of New York to priveledge it. That should tell you that there's something more going on than a simple policy change.

In this case, the clerk set up a system to comply with the law that allowed her to also comply with her religious convictions.

Really? Then tell me, what religious principle convicts her of engaging in sin if she processes this document.

[MortMan]

Yet, she needs a lawyer to defend it and the State of New York to priveledge it. That should tell you that there's something more going on than a simple policy change.

Yep, the accusation is all we need to render a verdict and sentence. That's our great American legal tradition!

What's going on is a concerted effort to eradicate christian beliefs from the public sphere, IMO. This case is a textbook example of demanding special (not equal) rights under the law.

Then tell me, what religious principle convicts her of engaging in sin if she processes this document.

In the article it states she believes the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin, and therefore her personally signing such a document would be a sin for her, because she would be supporting the sin of others. Whether you agree with that position or not, that is her viewpoint according to the article.

[ExTxMarine]

If God judges, as morally evil, every correlation to a particular sin, do you really think it matters when she stands before God and says, "yes, but I didn't handle the paperwork."

So, by that argument, I guess all Christians should stop running for any political office and refuse to work for any part of the government, since there a multitude of offenses in which our current government is involved. So, by YOUR standards, like someone else stated, just place on the door, "Christians need not apply!"

I think you are confusing her PERSONAL salvation with the group-think of COLLECTIVE salvation. This arrangement allows her to not assist these people in the commission of THEIR sin. You think because she works in that office, she is guilty by association? We live in a less than perfect world, and God will judge you on YOUR actions, not of those with whom you associate or by the job in which you work, unless that job, as a whole, is not within his standards (i.e., murder for hire, etc...).

Government is not an evil entity which God forbade! Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Jesus hung out with thieves and prostitutes, so I would I think that Christians, such as this clerk, should be out among the sinners and standing her ground to guide them to righteousness. I don't think she should slink off.

[longtermmemmory]

You should not need religion to object.

ANYONE for ANY reason should be able to avoid doing the homosexual based marriages.

[ExTxMarine]

As I stated to you in my email, I surely meant no malice towards you. And I apologize for my stupidity in assuming that you were pro-homosexuality.

I have truly enjoyed our conversation, but I think we will continue to disagree on the way which this will affect the clerk. But, I think we will agree that in a truly, God-fearing America, this situation would simply not be a subject which we would be forced to discuss. I am sure that we both agree that homosexuality is immoral. I am sure that we both agree when I state that we wish this would not be thrust upon the American populace.

But, we can only work within the confines which have been placed upon us and to think that this will not continue to encroach upon every aspect of our lives is simply not being realistic. So, until we can truly overturn these injustices, we should start using the same demands as the groups who have thwarted the social-bounds of the God-fear Americans by requiring them to make accommodations for OUR demands.

As I stated earlier, we MUST start PUSHING back! I see this as one little shove down a long hard road of PUSHING! Most Christians have simply decided to withdraw from the fight and that simply is no longer an option. So, I see nothing wrong with this woman making legal arrangements to stand her ground, while making a very VIABLE point.

I gotta go to work, so I will check out for now.

[csense]

In the article it states she believes the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin, and therefore her personally signing such a document would be a sin for her, because she would be supporting the sin of others.

Then just by being part of The office of the Clerk, she is also supporting it. Even you acknowledge that since, as you said,

" 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.

If "The Office Of The Clerk" is the issuing agent, and what they issue is supportive of homosexual marriage, then anyone who who is part of that office also supports it.

If that doesn't quite sound right to you, then neither does the notion that a signature, or stamp, or whatever it is that they do to process this paperwork, is tantamount to support either.

Take your pick. It's one or the other.

[Antoninus]

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.

Nope. She should refuse to sign and make them fire her.

[j.argese]

Maybe I’m old-fashioned but I think when you take a job, you do the job. Your religion is your personal business. Your sexual preference is your business. Your salary is your business.
Perhaps it’s time for each American to stop carrying the banner for their own vanity cause and to pick up the banner of getting the government out of the personnel business.
What other special treatments and accommodations so you support? Blind airline pilots? Epileptic heart surgeons? Dwarves in the NBA?

[MortMan]

Maybe I’m old-fashioned but I think when you take a job, you do the job.

But you also support redefining the job to make keeping it impossible. Good to know.

As for blind pilots, etc., I'm certain you didn't intend to draw up silly strawmen, but yet...

[MortMan]

You’ve transferred this woman’s viewpoint to me. That’s incorrect, FRiend. I was recounting what SHE has said.

I’m not going to try and defend someone else’s position.

My assertion is that the policy of requiring an appointment, to me, fulfills the requirements of the law.

The point of this lawsuit is to force the acceptance of homosexual marriage by any individual in the clerk’s office, as opposed to forcing the acceptance by the clerk’s office itself (that was accomplished with the law).

You are welcome to argue your viewpoint with the woman. I’m more interested in seeing your argument against the appointment policy being in compliance with the law. (And the fact that she is required to defend herself isn’t a reasoned argument for or against the validity of the policy.)

[csense]

As I stated to you in my email, I surely meant no malice towards you. And I apologize for my stupidity in assuming that you were pro-homosexuality.

You don't have to apologize. We're both Marines, and we're both big boys. Thank you for the civility though.

I have truly enjoyed our conversation...

As have I.

...but I think we will continue to disagree on the way which this will affect the clerk. But, I think we will agree that in a truly, God-fearing America, this situation would simply not be a subject which we would be forced to discuss. I am sure that we both agree that homosexuality is immoral. I am sure that we both agree when I state that we wish this would not be thrust upon the American populace.

I couldn't agree more. I understand what this woman is trying to do. I sympathize, but I just don't think this is the best way to go about it. In fact, I'm not sure how to fix the mess we're in. We don't live in a dominant culture anymore and the only thing she is likely to accomplish here is getting herself fired and enabling a possible lawsuit that could further the agenda of the very thing she disagrees with.

"As I stated earlier, we MUST start PUSHING back! I see this as one little shove down a long hard road of PUSHING! Most Christians have simply decided to withdraw from the fight and that simply is no longer an option. So, I see nothing wrong with this woman making legal arrangements to stand her ground, while making a very VIABLE point.

I get it and I understand. The problem is the First Amendment isn't going to help her here because we don't have a moral and religous people as John Adams spoke of. If tomorrow, everybody in the entire country suddenly awoke as atheists, except one person, they could relegate his religous worship to a single room of their choosing, in an area of their choosing, and for an amount of time of their choosing, all the while keeping faithful to the excercise clause, and they could do this because it really has no parameters to speak of.

Without a common culture, and one that is moral and religious, we are doomed. Plain and simple.

[j.argese]

Now I’m redefining the job? People want a marriage license, it’s the law, you give them the license. I believe the term is civil SERVANT, not civil “I don’t want to do it so I’ll initiate a Rube Goldberg method of circumventing the responsibilities of my position”. Do your job or hit the bricks.

[MortMan]

I believe I was unclear in my previous post. I did not mean to state that YOU personally redefined the job, but that the change to the marriage license rules is pretty new in NYS, and the new law changed the job. That is the change I was referring to.

Do your job or hit the bricks.

Actually, your standpoint as I understand it is that she should do her job in a manner approved by YOU (personally). You may want to call the appointment rule "Rube Goldberg", but it is a reasonable method in my opinion. You don't like it, so she should quit.

Now, you are welcome to have the last word, FRiend. I'll not respond further.

[ExTxMarine]

Perhaps it’s time for each American to stop carrying the banner for their own vanity cause and to pick up the banner of getting the government out of the personnel business.
I agree, we should get government out of our personal business. However, since many laws/rules were written around the nuclear family, this is not something which can be accomplished overnight. More importantly, the government decided to blow up the nuclear family as a core necessity, without thinking of the ramifications of that decision (or maybe they just didn't give a darn about the consequences). Either way, it is a law that puts people in uncomfortable positions which she did not have to deal with in the past. This accommodation is legal, it does not hurt anyone and it allows the city to implement the law as written, so I do not understand your outrage over them being implemented.

What other special treatments and accommodations so you support? Blind airline pilots? Epileptic heart surgeons? Dwarves in the NBA?
I know that you are smart enough to understand what "reasonable accommodation" means. Let me give you a very simple example which recently happened at my company. We are an electrical contract company. We had an employee who worked for us nearly a year. The job at which he had previously worked was completely air conditioned. When that job ended, we moved him to the only job we were currently working, which was an unfinished school. This was outside, in the heat, etc... He started having health problems and was having heat-related issues before 8AM each morning. We had a doctor examine him and it turns out that this young man has had a problem with hot environments his entire life (multiple past heat strokes starting at the age of 14). My company cannot guarantee that we will always have an air conditioned job at which we can place him; therefore, we cannot "reasonably accommodate" his illness. We let him go because he was unable to perform the job. So too would be the case for a "blind airline pilot" or "epileptic heart surgeons."

As for "dwarfs in the NBA," Spuds was pretty much a "dwarf" when compared to all the others on the court, so I would suggest that if the individuals skills were accomplished enough, yes, we could have dwarfs in the NBA.

[JSDude1]

You are correct that the 1st Amendment is ultimately a human invetion (based on Christian principles), and therefore cannot protect her, but her stance for Christ-and against immorality (even if she is punished by the state) will be protected by God (her conscience cannot be violated by sinful men). J.S.