Skip to comments.Rights Collide as Town Clerk Sidesteps Role in Gay Marriages
Posted on 09/28/2011 2:45:23 AM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
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.
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.
You should not need religion to object.
ANYONE for ANY reason should be able to avoid doing the homosexual based marriages.
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.
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 clerks 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.
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?
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...
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
You want to know why this bullcrap is happening in the rural and beautiful Finger Lakes Region of NY?
Because Ledyard is about 25 minutes North of ITHACA. That’s why.
I bet you dollars to donuts the dykes are somehow connected to ITHACA.
The City Of Evil is like a spreading infectious boil on what is otherwise a a very beautiful and very conservative region.
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.