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

click here to read article


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

To: ExTxMarine; MortMan
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.

61 posted on 09/28/2011 9:35:15 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 56 | View Replies]

To: csense
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).

62 posted on 09/28/2011 9:46:15 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

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.


63 posted on 09/28/2011 9:50:19 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
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."

64 posted on 09/28/2011 9:52:07 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
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!
65 posted on 09/28/2011 9:58:23 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
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.

66 posted on 09/28/2011 10:22:36 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: csense
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.

67 posted on 09/28/2011 10:32:19 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: csense
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.
68 posted on 09/28/2011 10:36:05 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

You should not need religion to object.

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


69 posted on 09/28/2011 10:38:49 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.


70 posted on 09/28/2011 11:05:49 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
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.

71 posted on 09/28/2011 11:11:31 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | 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.

Nope. She should refuse to sign and make them fire her.
72 posted on 09/28/2011 11:18:34 AM PDT by Antoninus (Take the pledge: I will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. EVER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine; MortMan

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?


73 posted on 09/28/2011 11:49:58 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 65 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
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...

74 posted on 09/28/2011 12:05:05 PM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: csense

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.)


75 posted on 09/28/2011 12:10:35 PM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

76 posted on 09/28/2011 12:23:49 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

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.


77 posted on 09/28/2011 1:23:35 PM 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 74 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
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.

78 posted on 09/28/2011 1:35:41 PM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: j.argese; MortMan
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.
79 posted on 09/28/2011 3:26:10 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 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.


80 posted on 09/28/2011 7:29:36 PM PDT by JSDude1 (December 18, 2010 the Day the radical homosexual left declared WAR on the US Military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

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.


81 posted on 09/28/2011 7:57:47 PM PDT by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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