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.

[csense]

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.

[Vide]

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.

[Venturer]

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.

[csense]

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.

[JSDude1]

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!

[csense]

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.

[USAF80]

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.

[Vide]

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."

[ExTxMarine]

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!

[MortMan]

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.

[MortMan]

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?

[csense]

Who benefits from stable, monogamous relationships?

From what fundamental principle then do you derive monogamy.

[ExTxMarine]

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!

[MortMan]

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?

[AppyPappy]

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

[Vide]

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.

[csense]

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.

[csense]

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.

[ExTxMarine]

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!

[csense]

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.