Traditional marriage advocates will defend clerks









New York Clerk Accommodation Memo

Rice Letter to Clerks Re Marriage Licenses-5

  1. Kingstonian says:

    Voiceo’Reason – Face it? Really? We’re talking about the law of the land here, not what does or does not make you feel ‘oogy’.

    Go ahead and be offended – that is your right. But when I demand my legal right to apply for a marriage license after July 24 in New York State, personal religious beliefs have no place in the clerk’s office.

    As to being fired, well – be gone! You have no power here.

  2. Lexxvs says:

    As it always happens in these cases, those clerks delusional or ignorant enough to confuse their civil duties with their belief in the case of marriage are just gone with the first gust of wind into oblivion. Ignorance can not be claimed as a right to avoid doing your job.

  3. Rick says:


    Sounds like you’ve lost yours.. or most likely never had it or any!

    Please, do tell us how many times you have been married and divorced?
    You religious whackos are really something….

    Equal is equal under the LAW!

  4. People don't understand law says:

    Your choices when you don’t like a task you are required to perform at your job:

    1) Do it, and keep quiet.
    2) Don’t do it, and quit or be fired.

    There isn’t a choice for “Don’t do it, and use religion to excuse your insubordination.” You might have a case if you are discriminated against because of your religion, but this is not one of those cases. An example might be someone wearing a turban at a place that otherwise doesn’t allow hats.

    Marriage is not a religious topic as far as the state is concerned. Below is a link to the marriage certificate. Please point out to me where there is any mention of religion or God. You don’t even need to involve religion to get married unless you want to. I could get married by a ship captain or a judge. Whether or not the Church accepts my marriage as valid has nothing to do with the state.

    People who oppose gay marriage are at best stuck in the past. At worst, bigots. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

    To anyone who promotes the slippery slope argument that we’re moving towards marriage to animals: Well done.

    How would you feel if the guy at the DMV wouldn’t give you a driver’s license because he thought your hairdo was too ugly for a picture?

  5. Bumble says:

    The law is the law and should be enforced. If the job entails issuing marriage licenses then marriage licenses should be issued. Period

  6. RWB says:

    I don’t care what anyone thinks. Gay marriage is not normal.

  7. Eric says:

    Were you guys this upset when pharmacists refused to give women the ‘morning after’ pill due to their beliefs? Since it was intended for heterosexual women, I suspect none of you gave a damn. So many on their high horses here.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I continue to bask in the reflected glow of all the tolerance and fair-mindedness demonstrated on this blog.

    Putting aside the boring, repetitive, and utterly ludicrous nonsense about the hateful, extreme, anachronistic, racially tinged, backward, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, bigoted nature of the solid majority of Americans who still have that crazy idea that marriage is the union of male and female, I would draw everyone’s attention to the actual text of the memo from the Alliance Defense Fund (which I am not sure if any of the prior commenators bothered to read).

    The memo cites to the Executive Law, which clearly provides that employees are entitled to request an accommodation of their religious observance or practice in the event that their job duties conflict with those observances or practices; in turn, employers must accommodate the employees unless doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. Also, the memo cites to the Domestic Relations Law, which states that deputy clerks or other municipal employees can handle marriage license applications in certain circumstances.

    Basically, all this memo is saying is that if a municipal clerk wants to opt out of solemnizing same-sex ceremonies or signing same-sex marriage licenses, and if there is someone else in the office who is willing to perform those tasks, the municipality should let the clerk opt out. Is that really so extreme? So unreasonable?

    The point has been made before, and bears making again: Same-sex marriage is not about extending equal rights to a marginalized population. It is about pushing a radically new definition of marriage and family upon our entire society, whether we like it or not. The rights and freedoms of those of us who may not wish to participate are not even worth considering. The comments above illustrate this perfectly.

    Hopefully Governor Cuomo’s stern admonition about following the law extends to himself. If it does, he will accommodate municipal clerks with religious objections to same-sex marriage if there is another employee available who can perform the ceremonies and issue the licenses. (After railroading this through the Senate in an under-cover-of-night, locked-door session, that’s the least he could do.) If it does not, the State of New York will find itself on the losing end of a lawsuit.

    Thank God for the Alliance Defense Fund.

  9. Lawrence says:

    I’d like to see expert legal analysis, by an independent third party expert, on this issue. The DA of Nassau County gave her opinion and the Governor, of course. I don’t disagree with either of them. The ADF makes some good points and they need to be reviewed impartially.

    I don’t want to see County Clerks resign, but I can’t tell if the Clerk was forced to resign, which I doubt, or just decided she will resign in protest over same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex marriage agitation has been going on for a long time. It didn’t fall out of the sky. Why wouldn’t a long serving County Clerk do a little homework and determine their rights, duties and obligations? Maybe it is time all the County Clerks took some mandatory continuing education like real estate brokers, appraisers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

    It is foolish to resign your position as Clerk if you can legally delegate to a deputy Clerk. It is clear that the Clerks that resigned were given bad advise.

  10. Brian says:

    that law is talking about the person taking the day off for services or other religious items, not to have a pitch hitter when a same sex couple comes to the window.

    This is not about religion but having the same rights as straight couples. I think she should leave her post. If I come in and she gets up and leaves the desk and I’m treated differently , that is discrimination.

    Now try this put “Black” in instead of “same sex couple”. Hmm brings a different view to things. Imagine if I got up from my desk and walked away and said sorry I need to find someone to take care of a “Black” person because my religion says I can’t do this.
    I like everyone so I’m not saying I’m against black people.

    It’s time for the world to move on and worry about divorce rates

  11. Don says:

    I find it interesting that the 24 hour waiting period has apparently been waved to allow these marriages to happen immediately…how nice…why does ANYONE now have to wait the 24 hours- or are only same sex marriages exempt?

  12. Billy The Kidd says:

    I love reading all the anti-tolerant comments from the “TOLERANT” Left.

  13. JiggsMalone says:

    Well! It is called a “culture war” for many reasons. This being just one of them.

  14. K says:

    I find killing other people offensive, and contrary to my deeply held beliefs. Therefore I am not a soldier nor a police officer. It would be ridiculous for me to be hired as a cop or a soldier, and then refuse to carry a gun because it is against my beliefs. If a cop, I would be fired, and rightly so. If I were a soldier, I’d be looking at court martial.

  15. johnnytsmithjr says:

    Why I disagree with all of this, what a funny outcome if they all refused, and you fff can go to laell for a few weeks why the lawsuits come out, remember what happens if someone refuses, and the judge accepts the lawsuit, and wins, this idiot law become null and void. There was a protection clause in the law for anyone who felt it was against their religious beliefs, not matter what there was a protection clause

  16. johnnytsmithjr says:

    no retrobution no matter what

  17. johnnytsmithjr says:

    clerks, anyone associated with this assnine law, who felt it was against there beliefs, like I said, the day of reckonning is upon us, someone of you stupid people will sue, and void this law, and guess what it will never come back if you do……..

  18. johnnytsmithjr says:

    I feel confident that within a year or so this assnine law will be gone, back to the dodos where it belongs

  19. johnnytsmithjr says:

    to face of reason, this law is not acceptable to most people in this country, and this state, and it was forced down the throat of people who did not have a say, this is not over, the law suits are coming, equal protection my ass, the law suits are coming

  20. Joey Y says:

    At the end of the day, that check comes from the state. That money is from taxpayers. Some of that tax money comes from gay people, but NONE of it comes from a church, so keep your religion out of your STATE FUNDED JOB. Until God signs that check, you are beholden to ALL taxpayers.

  21. johnnytsmithjr says:

    good opportunity for lightening to strike twice on this issue, the angels usually have fierce battles with imps of the devil

  22. johnnytsmithjr says:

    The dark prince may have one round one, but God will win in the end, soon, but prayers are being said around this country to end this crap, and inroads are starting to be heard, starting with the republicans, the top two candidates, people in 43 states will demand it, it is not over folks, and it does not begin with slime day, it starts with election days, Good bye for the first five imps, and one big imp is already been kicked out………

  23. wayne says:

    … you suppose that any of these “moral” clerks issued licenses to divorced persons while their God wasn’t looking?

  24. Earl Grey says:

    religious belief does not override the law. If it did, we would have a wide range of cultural persecution… from slavery to inequality for women. Your religion is yours…not mine. If you choose to stay ignorant, refuse to embrace differences, you are doomed. If you have a job in government, for the people who put you there…then you must be tolerant, of everyone you serve.

    We are a country of many beliefs and religions. Not just yours. If you don’t like it…GO.

  25. T. Wayne Lucas III says:

    Keep drooling everyone. Wait until 2012 then we’ll hear the whining.

  26. Voiceo'Reason says:

    Amen Johnny T. Smith Jr.

    From your mouth to Gods ears: )

    Gay marriage NO MORE!

  27. Joey says:

    So the Evangelical Christians can push their lifestyle onto others? They can simply reject to do their job and ignore law while discriminating against people?
    Some still think they are above the law, just because they claim some relationship to some god. Sorry, but that is not an excuse.

  28. SJ says:

    There is not a choice here. I am sure those clerks took an oath very similar to the one I took, which includes the words “to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of New York”.

    You don’t have an option of which ones to uphold and which ones you will ignore. I don’t always agree with the restrictions I face, but I knew they were in palce when I signed on, and I knew that the legistlature could change them at any time

  29. SJ says:

    @ mark: Marriage is not a religous ceremony. It is a legal proceeding. A wedding can be a religous cerremony, but doens’t have to be. Divorce is a no-no in some religions. Does that mean our clerks can alos refuse to file the divorce papers after they finish up in court?

  30. Superwoman Sometimes says:

    Forget all this banter about the need to leave religious convictions at the door when you enter government service. The religious affiliation of every candidate becomes an open issue although it has no bearing on his or her ability to do the job but it’s used as a basis in determining who gets voted in.

    Cuomo is delusional when he says ”The law is the law. You enforce the law as is, you don’t get to pick and choose those laws…If you can’t enforce the law, you shouldn’t be in that position.” Daily people pick and choose which laws will be upheld and which ones won’t. It’s seen in the inequitable practices of judges, the police, etc.

    Since there are other people within the town clerk’s office that can issue marriage licenses then there is no issue if someone has a sincerely held religious belief against SSM. Or are we suggesting that a person’s religion and religious conviction must be defined and approved by government.

    Marriage has become included in those “fundamental human rights” even though it isn’t nor has it ever been. If it was, then why legislate who can marry who, at what age a person can marry, and include restrictions on the number of people that a person can marry? None of us needs anyone else’s permission to get married nor do we need anyone else’s permission to get divorced, yet that’s just the situation that has been created by authorizing people to issue marriage licenses or to preside over divorce proceedings and issue a ruling.

RSS feed for comments on this post.