Town clerk: I will not issue marraige licenses

[ch33zw1z]

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.

So she's allowed to be intolerant because...wait, she's not.

 

[werepossum]

Sure, she's not really standing in the way of people getting their marriage licenses. But there's something to be said for not using an official government position as a platform to preach your personal beliefs. It's one thing if you're in a political position (Congress, state legislature, etc)...but using a non-political government office to push some personal agenda seems wrong to me. If she wants to, as a private citizen, protest about how gays are ruining America, that's her right. But that's NOT her job as town clerk.

I tend to agree. I see this as no different than Muslims working at grocery stores but refusing to sell or bag pork or liquor; if your religion prevents you from doing some part of your job, you need to find another job. If you really believe G-d is not okay with you issuing gay marriage licenses, why the hell would He be okay with you delegating that to someone else? Put on your big girl panties and resign.

And at the very, very least, shut the hell up about it. We all have laws we don't like; if we went around making an issue of them like prima donnas, we'd never get anything done except pissing each other off. Maybe the tax assessor doesn't believe churches should be exempt from taxes; should he/she be making an issue of that?

To quote Laura Ingraham, shut up and sing (or do whatever is your job.)

And for the record, I have no problem with her views. I just have a problem with her letting them affect her responsibilities. Should it be all right for her to tell a gay couple "I'm sorry, you'll have to come back when my deputy is here, because I don't approve of your lifestyle"? Hell no. We wouldn't accept that if her problem was with interracial couples or fat people, and we shouldn't accept it with gays.

 

[Munky]

So she's allowed to be intolerant because...wait, she's not.

Because tolerance means you can't force someone to be tolerant of the same things you want.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Because tolerance means you can't force someone to be tolerant of the same things you want.

No, no you can't. It's her job to hand out marriage licenses to people who qualify. STFU and do it, or step down.

 

[Munky]

No, no you can't. It's her job to hand out marriage licenses to people who qualify. STFU and do it, or step down.

Or, delegate that responsibility to someone else, which is what she did. Except a bunch of oversensitive sheep got offended at her reason.

 

[OCGuy]

Does anyone know what became of the civil actions for the schools that cancel proms due to interracial or gay attendence?

There could already be a legal precedence set here.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Or, delegate that responsibility to someone else, which is what she did. Except a bunch of oversensitive sheep got offended at her reason.

Sheep = religious people. Remember God calling them his flock in that good book? She's not allowed, as a government employee, to represent the government religiously. She's overstepped her boundaries.

If she had quietly handed these duties over to her deputy prior to the incident, she could've gone on her merry little way and not a single person would've been affected. She did not do this, and she is in the wrong because of it.

 

[kage69]

Once again, I'm not speaking of immigration enforcement. I'm speaking of the bigger picture.

Ahh I see, you are confusing my citing of a behavior with the actual support and defense of it.

No, I don't feel Executive Privilege should allow any president to circumvent responsibilities or the application of law.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Ahh I see, you are confusing my citing of a behavior with the actual support and defense of it.

No, I don't feel Executive Privilege should allow any president to circumvent responsibilities or the application of law.

If I was implying that you supported or defended something, I wouldn't be asking if you supported or defended something.

I will note, though, that you throw in a nice caveat "but" by implying that Obama is better because "religious dogma" doesn't play into his decision *if* he circumvents his responsibilities.

Sour grapes, indeed!

Now, what was that about "I guess 'Executive Privilege' is just one more thing that doesn't apply if the PoTUS has a (D) after his name."?

 

[sactoking]

Does anyone know what became of the civil actions for the schools that cancel proms due to interracial or gay attendence?

There could already be a legal precedence set here.

That's not really the same thing; schools aren't required to have a prom at all whereas the town clerk is required to issue marriage licenses.

 

[Munky]

Sheep = religious people. Remember God calling them his flock in that good book? She's not allowed, as a government employee, to represent the government religiously. She's overstepped her boundaries.

Absolutely not. She has a right to her opinions and beliefs, and she took steps to separate her job responsibility from such beliefs. You're implying that anyone in a government position is not allowed to state their religious beliefs, or the lack there of.

If she had quietly handed these duties over to her deputy prior to the incident, she could've gone on her merry little way and not a single person would've been affected. She did not do this, and she is in the wrong because of it.

Not a single person was effected either way. You're just confirming my statement that people took offense because her beliefs didn't align with theirs, even if that difference is inconsequential.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

So,a religious member of our government refuses to issue marriage licenses herself, but as per her allowed duties delegates it to a subordinate, thus ensuring that the public is not inconvenienced. She doesn't delegate it only in cases where it's gay/lesbian, but in all cases ensuring this isn't discriminatory either.

This shouldn't be an issue for anyone. And making an issue of it just makes the issue of actual religious persecution by Christians look like a joke.

The woman did what was required of her position, and did so in a manner that both her own religious beliefs and the public need was satisfied. Lay off.

 

[kage69]

If I was implying that you supported or defended something, I wouldn't be asking if you supported or defended something.

There was some confusion regarding piasa's post I think, sorry?

I will note, though, that you throw in a nice caveat "but" by implying that Obama is better because "religious dogma" doesn't play into his decision *if* he circumvents his responsibilities.

False. I did not say Obama is better, I said that 1.) religion should play no part in this issue for either side, and 2.) unfortunately Obama has politics to consider and isn't in the easier, ideological position that the clerk is. Does that mean I have to approve of him doing it? Of course not.

Sour grapes, indeed!

Smells more like whine now...

Now, what was that about "I guess 'Executive Privilege' is just one more thing that doesn't apply if the PoTUS has a (D) after his name."?

That was aimed at those who didn't have a problem with the last admin claiming EP to cover for all manner of abuses and strange decisions, yet somehow see selective enforcement by Obama (as per piasa's example) as something requiring impeachment. Obama would exercise the same defense if he had to - my point is if you weren't bothered by one president violating the constitution, playing politics with the lives of clandestine operatives, and spurning the notion of checks and balances via congressional oversight then what makes a lesser issue with another admin more deserving of impeachment?


I suppose I could have worded things better, mea culpa...

 

[PokerGuy]

It's not what she's doing, it's how she got there that's the problem. You want and obvious bigot in a government position?

You think she's an "obvious bigot", someone else doesn't. That's why there are laws, so opinions don't matter. As long as she follows them, she's free to have her opinion. If there's no law saying she personally has to issue the licenses, and that she can delegate that duty to someone else, then she can do that. If the voters don't like it, they can vote her out.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's her job to hand out marriage licenses to people who qualify.

No. It's not her job to hand them out, it's her job to make sure they get handed out to those who qualify. As long as she does that, she's fine.

 

[sactoking]

No. It's not her job to hand them out, it's her job to make sure they get handed out to those who qualify. As long as she does that, she's fine.

Actually, no, it's her job. When you have a bunch of laws in the same chapter on the same subject and a bunch of them say "Person A or Person B" and a minority of them say "Person A", then only Person A can do those items in which only their name is listed.

That's the case here where the NY state marriage laws say the "town clerk or deputy" can do a lot of things but only the "town clerk" can issue marriage licenses.

 

[BoberFett]

She doesn't do her job, then fire her. Seems simple enough. She can go get a job as a part time secretary at a church somewhere.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If the voters don't like it, they can vote her out.

Late to the party?

 

[ch33zw1z]

nvm

 

[ch33zw1z]

Absolutely not. She has a right to her opinions and beliefs, and she took steps to separate her job responsibility from such beliefs. You're implying that anyone in a government position is not allowed to state their religious beliefs, or the lack there of.



Not a single person was effected either way. You're just confirming my statement that people took offense because her beliefs didn't align with theirs, even if that difference is inconsequential.

So did she or did she not refuse to issue a license at any point? Serious question.

 

[actuarial]

At first I supported her, as she can choose to designate the responsibilities as long as that's allowed. Though there was no need to speak out about it (and she deserves all the negative attention she gets), it doesn't deserve getting fired.

But then, it said two women were denied their marriage certificate. That seems to be dereliction of duty.

So it's not clear to me whether or not someone who was qualified for a licence was denied. If they were, she should be fired. If not, she shouldn't.

 

[ch33zw1z]

At first I supported her, as she can choose to designate the responsibilities as long as that's allowed. Though there was no need to speak out about it (and she deserves all the negative attention she gets), it doesn't deserve getting fired.

But then, it said two women were denied their marriage certificate. That seems to be dereliction of duty.

So it's not clear to me whether or not someone who was qualified for a licence was denied. If they were, she should be fired. If not, she shouldn't.

Well said.

 

[spittledip]

Sure, she's not really standing in the way of people getting their marriage licenses. But there's something to be said for not using an official government position as a platform to preach your personal beliefs. It's one thing if you're in a political position (Congress, state legislature, etc)...but using a non-political government office to push some personal agenda seems wrong to me. If she wants to, as a private citizen, protest about how gays are ruining America, that's her right. But that's NOT her job as town clerk.

My perception of this whole thing is that she felt it was wrong for her to issue the licenses to same sex couples, so she refused to do it. I don't think this is about "preaching."

 

[rchiu]

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.

That's absolute right. The core issue here is those gay activist don't tolerate anyone with opposite view while they criticize other people are intolerant. What a bunch of hypocrites.

This lady didn't try to force her view on anyone, she let her deputy do the job. She wasn't trying to make political statement. If those activist wasn't trying to sue her and get her fired, not that many people would know about it. Couples (both straight and gay) will file application the same, the deputy will get those processed the same.

Funny how those who chant tolerance are often first to attack those that holds a different view.

 

[WHAMPOM]

But that's the problem she IS doing her job according to the law.

She's just transferred all marriage license applications to a deputy, which is OK according to law. IDK, maybe she never actually issued any herself anyway. Whenever I go to the courthouse for some business I always deal with some clerk anyway, not the actual 'office holder'.

I realize her views may not be popular, but not sure I see the big deal since everyone's apparently getting their marriage licenses.

Fern

Fern, yo's such a doormat. You bend to every wind.