• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Town clerk: I will not issue marraige licenses

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
Some Christians (not all) are an embarrassment to themselves and other christians.

By not issuing the marriage license, the clerk is trying to push her religion upon others. Its nothing more then a form of peaceful resistance.

Instead of doing like Hernán Cortés and killing everyone that refused to convert to Christianity, the clerk refuses to issues a license. Either way, its a form of oppression.

Why cant christians let others live in peace?
 
Last edited:

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
If she didn't make a big stink about it, how else would she make herself look like she is being persecuted for being Christian?

You know, it's one thing if you are someone who is part of a group who has been hit with fire hoses, dragged behind a truck, run over by a truck, tied to a fence with barbed wire, denied basic rights, etc. etc. and you make some noise over all of the outrage your people have endured.

But, to get all whiney because you aren't getting the attention all these other groups you "disapprove" of are getting, that is just pathetic.

Some Christians LOVE to make it look like they are being hunted down and skinned alive. The reality is, there is a change or an acceptance, which goes against the Christian origin of what was once unacceptable, and these idiots are taking it as their "way of life" being destroyed.

They are human beings. You clearly disapprove of their existance - which is why they are fighting in the 1st place - and when the laws and rules are changed to acknowledge the very people they fear and hate, they consider it is an attack on Christianity.

WTF are you talking about?! You are the asshole who delcared war on homosexuals to begin with! Just because your stupid fears are now no longer allowed to influence how people live in this nation, you are NOT the fucking victim here.

Get the fuck over yourself.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
The president himself issued his policy of not arresting known illegal immigrants as long as they keep the other laws. How is this any different? He should be impeached.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/4210/

Where do you get a marriage license?

A couple who intends to be married in New York State must apply in person for a marriage license to any town or city clerk in the state. The application for a license must be signed by both applicants in the presence of the town or city clerk. A representative cannot apply for the license on behalf of the applicants. This applies even if the representative has been given a Power of Attorney. Notarized marriage license affidavits signed by the applicants cannot be substituted for their personal appearance.
Is there a waiting period?

Yes. Although the marriage license is issued immediately, the marriage ceremony may not take place within 24 hours from the exact time that the license was issued. When both applicants are 16 years of age or older, the 24-hour waiting period may be waived by an order of a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the County Court of the county in which either of the applicants resides. If either person is under 16 years of age, the order must be from the Family Court judge of the county in which the person under 16 years of age resides.
Same information can be found on this page which specifically addresses gay marriages.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/vital_records/marriage_equality_frequently_asked_questions.htm
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,503
5,682
136
The president himself issued his policy of not arresting known illegal immigrants as long as they keep the other laws. How is this any different? He should be impeached.


I guess 'Executive Privilege' is just one more thing that doesn't apply if the PoTUS has a (D) after his name.

While I certainly don't agree with Obama on that, it should be noted that the issue of illegal immigration doesn't rest solely on the president, and that his feelings on it aren't borne of religious dogma. That's quite different than a single employee with a clearly defined role not doing her job due to others not following her religious subscription.

Those sour grapes should go great with the apples and oranges you've already collected... enjoy!
 

Cr0nJ0b

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2004
1,141
28
91
Well Rose, if you aren't going to issue marriage licenses and that's part of the job of the clerk...then we won't pay you. Since you aren't doing your job and all. Let's make set your compensation plan based on your duties and your willingness to perform them. If you want to pass them along to others, fine, but we ain't paying you.

This just sounds like another lazy stupid bureaucrat that needs to have her head examined and then get fired.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
0
76
What's the difference between this person and our Executive branch deciding they aren't going to defend one of our country's laws?
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
0
76
FWIW, I think that the clerk should do the duty that is prescribed to her and her position. What happens if her deputy is out sick?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I am sorry but where does it say you cannot hold a public office if you are religious?

She 1) isn't forcing her belief on anyone, 2) still get task done by delegation to her deputy.

So how does her belief affected her office and her duty? Are you saying any religious people shouldn't work in the public office because they don't share the same view point of entire American population?
We must been reading two different posts...
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
30,865
9,688
146
You are leaving out the part that she delegated that duty to her deputy. For both straight and gay.
She made the mistake of not doing this preemptively and quietly. Now she's on the hook for pushing her beliefs on others.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,503
5,682
136
What's the difference between this person and our Executive branch deciding they aren't going to defend one of our country's laws?
She is basing her decision on her religious sensitivities, something that has no place in government. I'm guessing Obama deciding what to enforce and what not to enforce is based on a multitude of political issues which may or may not be complicated by states and big business (which again, I don't condone or appreciate) If Obama was the sole enforcer of immigration and cited his preacher or bible as support for his position well then there wouldn't be any difference.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
0
76
She is basing her decision on her religious sensitivities, something that has no place in government. I'm guessing Obama deciding what to enforce and what not to enforce is based on a multitude of political issues which may or may not be complicated by states and big business (which again, I don't condone or appreciate) If Obama was the sole enforcer of immigration and cited his preacher or bible as support for his position well then there wouldn't be any difference.
I'm not speaking of immigration.

How long has the Executive Branch been able to pick and choose the standing laws that it enforces? And how often has it publicly flaunted the fact that it is no longer enforcing a law?
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
Let her expose her self for the bigot she is. The next election she will be removed form office. Her career is at a dead end now.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
She made the mistake of not doing this preemptively and quietly. Now she's on the hook for pushing her beliefs on others.
If the county people aren't full of bigots they would start a recall election going to remove her.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,503
5,682
136
"Executive Privilege" has nothing to do with the President's office *not enforcing laws*.

While we can agree on the literal meaning of that, I was using it in the spirit of Cheney circa 2001-2008. 'Executive privilege' as in, I'll do what I want if you don't like it tough shit. Curiously enough, it's not supposed to apply to the VP at all, yet I can't recall a single Bush supporter having a problem with Cheney claiming it. Executive privilege isn't supposed to be able to prevent the FBI from doing it's job, yet that's exactly how it was used in Plamegate to prevent investigation.
Get it?
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
0
76
While we can agree on the literal meaning of that, I was using it in the spirit of Cheney circa 2001-2008. 'Executive privilege' as in, I'll do what I want if you don't like it tough shit. Curiously enough, it's not supposed to apply to the VP at all, yet I can't recall a single Bush supporter having a problem with Cheney claiming it. Executive privilege isn't supposed to be able to prevent the FBI from doing it's job, yet that's exactly how it was used in Plamegate to prevent investigation.
Get it?
I understand your point and I absolutely disagree with that "definition" (for lack of a better word, since executive privilege is not a Constitution-granted right of the Executive branch, anyway), but how does that apply here? That still has nothing to do with executive privilege not covering the non-enforcement of laws.

Do you think the President should be able to pick and choose the laws the office enforces?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,503
5,682
136
I'm not speaking of immigration.

How long has the Executive Branch been able to pick and choose the standing laws that it enforces? And how often has it publicly flaunted the fact that it is no longer enforcing a law?

You refer to the conversation between piasa and I about his/her example (which is Obama irt illegal immigration) but you aren't speaking of immigration?



Oooook....
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,503
5,682
136
I understand your point and I absolutely disagree with that "definition" (for lack of a better word, since executive privilege is not a Constitution-granted right of the Executive branch, anyway), but how does that apply here? That still has nothing to do with executive privilege not covering the non-enforcement of laws.

Do you think the President should be able to pick and choose the laws the office enforces?
I didn't offer a definition, just the spirit of the phrase as shown by the Cheney years, with a general question as to why it seems to be acceptable under one admin but reprehensible in another. It boils down to the imperious attitude by the Executive and those willing to excuse it, but I'm not the one trying to liken it to the actions of a self-centered holy roller.

I've already twice posted my disapproval on Obama's feelings on immigration enforcement, did you not notice?
 
Last edited:

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
0
76
You refer to the conversation between piasa and I about his/her example (which is Obama irt illegal immigration) but you aren't speaking of immigration?



Oooook....
I'm referring to your apparent defense of the Executive's "ability" to not enforce laws as being "Executive Privilege". Do you subscribe to this defense, or are you just trying to make a dig at piasa?
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
0
76
I didn't offer a definition, just the spirit of the phrase as shown by the Cheney years, with a general question as to why it seems to be acceptable under one admin but reprehensible in another. It boils down to the imperious attitude by the Executive and those willing to excuse it, but I'm not the one trying to liken it to the actions of a self-centered holy roller.

I've already twice posted my disapproval on Obama's feelings on immigration enforcement, did you not notice?
Once again, I'm not speaking of immigration enforcement. I'm speaking of the bigger picture.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,650
1,327
126
I just read the NY law and she's wrong, what she's doing is illegal, and she should be forced to comply or be removed from office.

The State of NY's assertion that the law requires her to issue marriage licenses is correct. DOM-3-15-2 states:
If it appears from the affidavits and statements so taken, that the
persons for whose marriage the license in question is demanded are
legally competent to marry, the said clerk shall issue such license
except in the following cases.
The use of the operative "shall" is mandatory. If the NY legislature had intended discretionary authority to be granted they would have used the word "may."

The clerk's assertion that NY law allows her to delegate is also correct. However, in this case it does not apply.

DOM-3-15 is specifically dealing with the clerk's duty to issue marriage licenses. Since it is specifically addressing one aspect of the clerk's duties it overrides any general statements about the clerk's duties. This is standard statutory construction.

DOM-3-15-2 specifically requires the clerk to issue marriage licenses. How do we know this refers to the clerk and not the office of the clerk? Simple, DOM-3 mentions when duties may be delegated to deputies. For example, Dom-3-13-d dealing with the mandatory Rubella disclosure states
It shall be the
duty of each town and each city clerk or duly authorized deputy acting
in the clerk's stead
So, we know that DOM-3 tells us when deputies may undertake the clerk's duties. Since DOM-3-15-2 does not say that deputies may issue marriage licenses statutory construction mandates that the legislative intent was for deputies to not be able to issue marriage licenses so the clerk's refusal to do so herself is a refusal to carry out the duties of the office she was elected to.
 

Wordplay

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2010
1,348
1
81
She is doing her duty. She is not refusing to issue licenses. Her office is issuing marriage licenses to gays. She is doing what the law says she can - delegate it to one of her employees.

Fern
And according to that memo she should be doing her job but she is refusing to do it. It is her responsibility to issue marriage license not her deputy's. I'm sure her deputy has their his/her responsibilities to take care of.

This is discrimination on her part. Before the law went into affect she had no issue in issuing marriage licenses, but now because of the new law she stopped doing her duty. Reason why she stopped? Gays have the right to be married in her state and it goes against her religious belief. Regardless if she stopped doing it for straight and gay couples, the fact remains that she stopped doing her duty because of the new law.

If this lady wants a job that doesn't go against her religious ethics then she needs to find another job.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,379
0
76
Who cares if she stopped issuing licenses. If she did it for any other reason, no one would have a problem with her deputy taking over the responsibility. But because her religious beliefs aren't in line with politically-correct sensitivity dogma, then all of a sudden it's an outrage. Guess what - if you want tolerance for homosexuals, then you gotta have tolerance for those who don't agree with your own beliefs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY