Slog
News & ArtsThursday, September 15, 2011
LGBTQITSLFA Clerk Refuses to Issue Marriage License to Lesbian Couple
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:25 PM
In New York, where same-sex marriage is legal:
Rose Marie Belforti, the town clerk for the small town of Ledyard, has publicly stated that she will not sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples and refused to do so for Katie Carmichael and Deirdre DiBiaggio on Aug. 30. [...]
Shortly after New York legalized marriage equality, Carmichael and DiBiaggio began making plans to wed. But Belforti, the publicly elected official responsible for issuing marriage licenses, refused to issue one herself and told the couple to make an appointment with a deputy town clerk. There's just one problem: There is no deputy town clerk.
Belforti has cited religious reasons that prevent her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
I agree with Unicorn Booty: Fire her. I mean, sorry if she believes that religion forbids her from marrying gay couples... but marrying people under state law is her job. If my religion forbade me from typing petulant screeds, I can't imagine I'd be employed much longer, either.
3
@ 1, have you considered that you don't suffer discrimination at all? That the negativity you draw is simply your personality at work?
5
@1 Would you feel the same if, say, the clerk refused a marriage license to a man and a woman because they were of different races?
7
@3 If only that was true, but nope. In real life I'm actually quite good at pretending to care and even being nice. I have a very real fake smile. ;)
@5 Nope, I wouldn't. To me marriage is just tax evasion, nothing more. To many people it actually is now, a small but growing movement to just ditch the whole mess. Many on the far right agree, though the movement was a leftists idea .... and well ... I agreed to because I never saw a purpose in marriage, most of the other benefits shouldn't be dependent on a contract anyway, that's all throwback stuff from when marriage was about land ownership and peace treaties.
@6 She'd be fired over that instantly.
@5 Nope, I wouldn't. To me marriage is just tax evasion, nothing more. To many people it actually is now, a small but growing movement to just ditch the whole mess. Many on the far right agree, though the movement was a leftists idea .... and well ... I agreed to because I never saw a purpose in marriage, most of the other benefits shouldn't be dependent on a contract anyway, that's all throwback stuff from when marriage was about land ownership and peace treaties.
@6 She'd be fired over that instantly.
11
Maybe Ms. Belforti should follow this verse?
Romans 13
Submission to Governing Authorities
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Romans 13
Submission to Governing Authorities
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
13
@8 I wish everyone did. ;) But ... someday enough might.
@10 Another good view on it, also another angle that's helped sway quite a few in some of the politista groups.
Hey look! I can make up silly words to! Politista .... sounds cool actually.
@10 Another good view on it, also another angle that's helped sway quite a few in some of the politista groups.
Hey look! I can make up silly words to! Politista .... sounds cool actually.
15
Aaaw, #14 broke a cog .... thanks for the nice way to say you don't care about anyone else's views on anything. How sweet you even took the time to call me a name.
16
Only people with some kind of belief in a supernatural deity can claim that their beliefs prevent them from issuing licenses/filling prescriptions/driving a taxi/ doing their job. If you're an atheist, you're out of luck.
17
KittenKoder doesn't believe in "big fed"
So why do you give a shit if a STATE EMPLOYEE is being insubordinate?
So why do you give a shit if a STATE EMPLOYEE is being insubordinate?
18
I don't know what KittenKoder is talking about. And with the Registered Commenter Filter for Slog and Line Out ( http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4858… ), you don't have to, either!
19
She has the right to protest the law. She has the right to write letters of complaint to the editor, to her congressperson, the mayor, the governor, or whoever. But she does not have the right to ignore the law and violate the civil rights of fellow citizens.
She should be fired immediately. If she isn't, Ledyard should be sued for violating the couple's civil rights.
She should be fired immediately. If she isn't, Ledyard should be sued for violating the couple's civil rights.
20
If this Ms. Belfortis conviction she should stand by it.
Provided she thinks losing her job is worth her concvictions.
New Yorks legislature was and is wrong for helping to destroy marriage in our nation. But in New York that's the law. In New York this womans job is to help destroy marriage by issuing such licenses. Her civil disobedience is perhaps her moral duty. But she must accept whatever the consequences of her behavior are for that disobedience.
Just as gays having chosen homosexuality should accept the social and legal consequences of their choices. But I won't be holding my breath on that one.
Provided she thinks losing her job is worth her concvictions.
New Yorks legislature was and is wrong for helping to destroy marriage in our nation. But in New York that's the law. In New York this womans job is to help destroy marriage by issuing such licenses. Her civil disobedience is perhaps her moral duty. But she must accept whatever the consequences of her behavior are for that disobedience.
Just as gays having chosen homosexuality should accept the social and legal consequences of their choices. But I won't be holding my breath on that one.
22
@20- You're a truly great Fascist, SB. You support the power of the state and oppression of minorities.
23
@20 You do realize that "gays having chosen homosexuality" makes as much sense as "straights having chosen heterosexuality" or "mammal mothers having chosen to give live birth" right, Seattlebigot?
24
Oh, please. Hold your breath. Perhaps a burst blood vessel in your brain will keep you from typing in the future.
25
"Just as Catholics should accept the social and legal consequences..."
"Just as married women should accept the social and legal consequences..."
"Just as disgraced teens should accept the social and legal consequences..."
"Just as race traitors should accept the social and legal consequences..."
Nope, none of those sound right any more either!
"Just as married women should accept the social and legal consequences..."
"Just as disgraced teens should accept the social and legal consequences..."
"Just as race traitors should accept the social and legal consequences..."
Nope, none of those sound right any more either!
27
@20 Actually, New York's legislature extended the benefits of marriage to a community to which those benefits had previously been denied.
28
@20,
Gays and lesbians ARE accepting the consequences of being gay. They're not claiming married status on tax returns, or if they are, they're being audited/penalized for it. But they also have the right to stand up for their convictions, which they are doing, by working to change the laws.
Gays and lesbians ARE accepting the consequences of being gay. They're not claiming married status on tax returns, or if they are, they're being audited/penalized for it. But they also have the right to stand up for their convictions, which they are doing, by working to change the laws.
29
@ 20, I was wondering if you would show up to sing that tune.
"Civil Disobedience" in the name of bigotry and oppression! Priceless.
"Civil Disobedience" in the name of bigotry and oppression! Priceless.
30
If her position is publicly elected, how do you folks propose she be fired?
Sounds like she'd have to impeached or go through some similar political process of removal.
I think suing would be more effective, if the couple wants to make a point (if they just want to get married, I'm sure they can find other municipalities that will do it, but then the terrorists win, right?). Hopefully the legal battle would drain enough of the public coffers to put her position in jeopardy for financial reasons, cause the majority of her constituents probably either agree with her or don't disagree strongly enough to throw her out of office.
Sounds like she'd have to impeached or go through some similar political process of removal.
I think suing would be more effective, if the couple wants to make a point (if they just want to get married, I'm sure they can find other municipalities that will do it, but then the terrorists win, right?). Hopefully the legal battle would drain enough of the public coffers to put her position in jeopardy for financial reasons, cause the majority of her constituents probably either agree with her or don't disagree strongly enough to throw her out of office.
31
For me I guess, law cannot change the feelings of every individual. So, I agree with same sex-marriage too.
33
@30 Town Clerk is indeed an elected office in New York State, I believe for a term of two years. The "towns" in question are actually townships, administrative divisions of counties, each of which could contain a dozen towns, hamlets and villages. To some extent, law at that level is somewhat chaotic and largely unsupervised by the state.
So, unless you want to get married in a different jurisdiction, a civil suit is about the only recourse. Seeking a civil injunction might be fun. A county court could probably order the clerk to issue the license, and slap her ass in jail for contempt if she refuses.
So, unless you want to get married in a different jurisdiction, a civil suit is about the only recourse. Seeking a civil injunction might be fun. A county court could probably order the clerk to issue the license, and slap her ass in jail for contempt if she refuses.
34
gah, this asshat Belforti needs to be fired. Or recalled, if it's an elected position. Or she should just resign in protest if she can't bring herself to uphold the law.
The only time I think it's acceptable for someone to refuse to do their job on moral grounds is when there is someone else on hand to take over immediately. Same thing goes for pharmacists who think morning after pills are a sin, or a vegetarian who works in a restaurant that serves meat (and I've known quite a few who've done that and refused to handle the meat - HELLO WHY ARE YOU WORKING IN A RESTAURANT THAT SERVES MEAT IF YOU WON'T TOUCH IT). I don't actually have a problem with someone standing by their convictions, but if they are denying service to customers, they are not fulfilling their job requirements and need to work somewhere else.
The only time I think it's acceptable for someone to refuse to do their job on moral grounds is when there is someone else on hand to take over immediately. Same thing goes for pharmacists who think morning after pills are a sin, or a vegetarian who works in a restaurant that serves meat (and I've known quite a few who've done that and refused to handle the meat - HELLO WHY ARE YOU WORKING IN A RESTAURANT THAT SERVES MEAT IF YOU WON'T TOUCH IT). I don't actually have a problem with someone standing by their convictions, but if they are denying service to customers, they are not fulfilling their job requirements and need to work somewhere else.
35
What is the oath of office in New York? I assume it contains words similar to "uphold the laws of X,Y and/or Z". I am relatively certain that failing that oath is an offense that could see her removed from office w/o impeachment proceedings (similar to elected officials caught embezzeling).
Last I checked the divorce rate was actually dropping slightly- so it turns out the biggest threat to marriage was baby boomers.
Last I checked the divorce rate was actually dropping slightly- so it turns out the biggest threat to marriage was baby boomers.
36
@18 Ben, thanks! I remembered people talking about the script awhile ago, but never thought I'd be irritated enough to actually use it myself. Works like a charm.
37
@30: What's needed here is not an injunction (which prohibits, or enjoins, the taking of an action), but a writ of mandate (or mandamus), which compels a public official to take a ministerial action. Slam dunk. Court compels town clerk to issue license and when she doesn't, she can be hauled off to the clink (where she can author her "Letter from Ledyard Jail" to her tea party friends).
39
Why on earth wouldn't you fire her? She's refusing to do her job. If I refused to pour gin and tonics as a bartender, I'd also be fired.
40
"Gays choose to be that way. Whaaaaaaa. Gays are ruining marriage and wrecking my life. Whaaaaaaaaaaaa."
-Seattleblah
-Seattleblah
41
@39 She's an elected official. Only the voters can "fire" her at the next election, and not sooner. There's also a chance she's in a conservative township which agrees with her, in which case she'll just get reelected. There may be some mechanism for removal, but I'm not sure what it would be. I strongly suspect there isn't anything on the Town or County levels. And our State government tends to give local government a wide berth in its operations.
Even if she's ordered by a court to issue the license, refuses, and goes to jail for contempt, she'll still be Town Clerk. They don't have the power to remove her.
Even if she's ordered by a court to issue the license, refuses, and goes to jail for contempt, she'll still be Town Clerk. They don't have the power to remove her.
43
20, Seattleblues, yes, she is so brave standing up for her convictions like that. Perhaps you'll heap the same praise on this justice of the peace?
You see, he's not violating equal rights because, while he won't marry a black person to a white person, he also refuses to marry white people to black people. Equality for all! He believes he's protecting society, just like you! Remember, mixed race marriage is a chosen behavior, and lifestyle! People can just as easily choose to marry within their own race.
More...
Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace
(AP) NEW ORLEANS A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15…
You see, he's not violating equal rights because, while he won't marry a black person to a white person, he also refuses to marry white people to black people. Equality for all! He believes he's protecting society, just like you! Remember, mixed race marriage is a chosen behavior, and lifestyle! People can just as easily choose to marry within their own race.
44
Local newspaper stories often have some interesting details that aren't on the wire service versions.
I wonder how this woman squares her "strong belief in God and the Bible" with the fact she swore an oath on that Bible and before God to uphold the laws and faithfully execute the duties of that office? Hey, Lady, what's the deal? Do you believe in God or not? If you do, shouldn't you keep your oath, or were you just taking God's name in vain and is your sworn word just so much shit?
I wonder how this woman squares her "strong belief in God and the Bible" with the fact she swore an oath on that Bible and before God to uphold the laws and faithfully execute the duties of that office? Hey, Lady, what's the deal? Do you believe in God or not? If you do, shouldn't you keep your oath, or were you just taking God's name in vain and is your sworn word just so much shit?
46
" But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
--Matthew 5:32 NIV
I assume the virtuous Rose Marie Belforti has been denying marriage licenses to divorced people her entire career too.
--Matthew 5:32 NIV
I assume the virtuous Rose Marie Belforti has been denying marriage licenses to divorced people her entire career too.
47
#46--
You just dont't get it. Homosexuality is a choice! And we shouldn't be forced to endorse or support lifestyle choices other people make!
Being divorced, on the other hand, is an innate quality unique to the heterosexual complementarity of one man and one woman! It's not a choice at all!
You just dont't get it. Homosexuality is a choice! And we shouldn't be forced to endorse or support lifestyle choices other people make!
Being divorced, on the other hand, is an innate quality unique to the heterosexual complementarity of one man and one woman! It's not a choice at all!
49
@43
I was actually agreeing that the woman should lose her job if she's unwilling to perform the duties of that job.
If she thinks that cost worth her principles, she should stand on them. If not, she should issue the licenses to gay couples and do her job according to the new New York laws redefining and destroying marriage.
And no matter how often you conflate them, civil rights for actual minorities and legitimate choice consequences for lifestlye choices are in no way comparable.
I was actually agreeing that the woman should lose her job if she's unwilling to perform the duties of that job.
If she thinks that cost worth her principles, she should stand on them. If not, she should issue the licenses to gay couples and do her job according to the new New York laws redefining and destroying marriage.
And no matter how often you conflate them, civil rights for actual minorities and legitimate choice consequences for lifestlye choices are in no way comparable.
50
@23 and 29
You both should look up that word bigot. It clearly doesn't mean what you think it does.
You both should look up that word bigot. It clearly doesn't mean what you think it does.
51
49, Mixed race sex and marriage are a lifestyle choice, and that justice of the peace believes it's not a legitimate choice.
54
@18:
Thanks Ben, but it leads to the obvious question - at least for the coding impaired such as myself: how precisely do you install the filter?
Thanks Ben, but it leads to the obvious question - at least for the coding impaired such as myself: how precisely do you install the filter?
55
@53, Apparently, it's not. And who the fuck cares who the coroner and city clerk and all of those other positions are? I really wouldn't mind them appointing half the positions they ask us to vote for.
And frankly, I'm sick of people using the one part of the Bible they've actually heard of to justify why they look down on gay people. They can call themselves Christians all day long, but they're just shallowly disguised bigots and I'll go toe to toe with them on the Bible any day of the week. I have a few years of Catholic sunday school under my belt. I'd kick their ass.
And frankly, I'm sick of people using the one part of the Bible they've actually heard of to justify why they look down on gay people. They can call themselves Christians all day long, but they're just shallowly disguised bigots and I'll go toe to toe with them on the Bible any day of the week. I have a few years of Catholic sunday school under my belt. I'd kick their ass.
56
While I definitely think this person should be fired (for refusing to provide a service as a public servant due to her own religious convictions, not because of any legal reason), I think I'd support a lawsuit for the purposes of clarifying the boundaries around such expressions of "religious freedom." What I think needs to be clarified is that this woman is in the position of power, and is abusing that power to serve her own interests. At that point, her right to express what she believe what she does about homosexuality in this material way infringes on the rights of the couple she refused service to, in a way that materially impacts their lives. At which point their rights should trump hers, because it is an abuse of her power. She's free to believe whatever she wants, but not to deny service to the public when there is no legal reason to do so.
It might be debatable (legally, at least) whether private entities can discriminate legally (I don't think think they should be able to, but can at least see how that may be something difficult to resolve legally). But this shouldn't be something that public servants can do.
And I think anyone who wants to discriminate -- public or private -- should know that while they may have the right to assert their beliefs, it doesn't mean freedom from consequences (termination, lawsuits, boycotts) that may seek to reassert either -- in this case -- the rights of this couple, which are legally recognized, or the values of equality in the form of a push towards particular rights (for example, a picket or boycotting a private business that engages in discriminatory practices). The current understanding of civil disobedience and certain types of freedom (freedom of expression, for example) is to some degree a willful refusal to recognize that exercising a right to freely voice or act upon a particular viewpoint doesn't mean blanket freedom from criticism or consequences for that expression. The right continually uses this misunderstanding to protect themselves from criticism for active bigotry -- which is what this is, bigotry in action.
More...
It might be debatable (legally, at least) whether private entities can discriminate legally (I don't think think they should be able to, but can at least see how that may be something difficult to resolve legally). But this shouldn't be something that public servants can do.
And I think anyone who wants to discriminate -- public or private -- should know that while they may have the right to assert their beliefs, it doesn't mean freedom from consequences (termination, lawsuits, boycotts) that may seek to reassert either -- in this case -- the rights of this couple, which are legally recognized, or the values of equality in the form of a push towards particular rights (for example, a picket or boycotting a private business that engages in discriminatory practices). The current understanding of civil disobedience and certain types of freedom (freedom of expression, for example) is to some degree a willful refusal to recognize that exercising a right to freely voice or act upon a particular viewpoint doesn't mean blanket freedom from criticism or consequences for that expression. The right continually uses this misunderstanding to protect themselves from criticism for active bigotry -- which is what this is, bigotry in action.
57
@50:
"bigot
noun
1. A person who is bigoted"
"bigoted
adjective
1. Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions
2. Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance"
Seattleblues, you insist that liberalism is a disease and that gays and poor people all chose to be the way they are. I think you ought to curl up with a dictionary one of these days.
"bigot
noun
1. A person who is bigoted"
"bigoted
adjective
1. Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions
2. Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance"
Seattleblues, you insist that liberalism is a disease and that gays and poor people all chose to be the way they are. I think you ought to curl up with a dictionary one of these days.
59
@58: And we're using democratic processes to shift the Republic. Hurf durf this is the most basic concept of American governance.
60
@52: "Ugh I don't get why you Americans elect so many officials."
Democrats hire so many officials in the hopes that one might do a thing, while Republicans hire so many officials to fire all the rest. Neither goal comes to fruition.
Democrats hire so many officials in the hopes that one might do a thing, while Republicans hire so many officials to fire all the rest. Neither goal comes to fruition.
61
@20 I hope you're prepared to accept the legal and social consequences of wearing clothing made out of multiple fabrics, 'cause your imaginary friend is gonna SMITE YOUR ASS for disobeying His Almighty Commandment as clearly spelled out in Deuteronomy 22:11.
62
So, how can we stand in support of this couple? It feels a little ineffectual to just sit here and bluster about it on the internet. Who do I send an angry (but clear and reasonable) letter to?
63
@62--and all others who want to let the city officials of Ledyard know how you feel about the actions of Rose Marie Belforti:
ledyard@hughes.net
ledyard@hughes.net
64
@54: Ah, sorry. Well, you need a browser that can run userscripts. How this is done varies from browser to browser; probably the most common is the Greasemonkey Addon for Firefox. Install that, and you should be able to simply click the install button on the script's page.
I know Opera natively supports userscripts, although I haven't had much luck getting this particular script to work; I suspect it's doing some Firefox-specific things. I don't use IE, Chrome, or Safari well enough to know what their userscript support is like; try googling "Greasemonkey " to get started.
I know Opera natively supports userscripts, although I haven't had much luck getting this particular script to work; I suspect it's doing some Firefox-specific things. I don't use IE, Chrome, or Safari well enough to know what their userscript support is like; try googling "Greasemonkey " to get started.
66
@54 - First, you need to be running Firefox. Then you can install GreaseMonkey, which is an add-on for Firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox…
Installation is simple and quick.
Then install the registered user filter (which also neatly nests comments), and Presto! you have a magic Hide button next to each registered user.
I have a LONG list. I prefer that Slog not raise my blood pressure.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox…
Installation is simple and quick.
Then install the registered user filter (which also neatly nests comments), and Presto! you have a magic Hide button next to each registered user.
I have a LONG list. I prefer that Slog not raise my blood pressure.
67
@59 Still very different than being a Democracy. I had to learn the hard way myself what the difference is so I'm just pointing it out. ;)
69
Bigot lady is setting up that small town for enormous legal bills: she sues if they fire her, ACLU sues if she stays in office.
Nice trick to pull on your community, asshole.
Nice trick to pull on your community, asshole.
72
@64: That should have been "Greasemonkey <browser name>", but I forgot to escape the angle brackets.
73
@ 50,
Here you are.
What's that? Wikipedia doesn't count? That old argument that only comes out when wikipedia doesn't agree with you? Well, how about the dictionary?
Both descriptions fit you to a T. From your baseless claims of choice in homosexuality, to your reliable bailing on the conversation if challenged to give proof that supports your statements, you're stubborn and intolerant.
Also, what VL @ 57 said. (And I noticed that you've seem to have bailed yet again - could VL's comment have anything to do with that?)
Here you are.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.
What's that? Wikipedia doesn't count? That old argument that only comes out when wikipedia doesn't agree with you? Well, how about the dictionary?
big·ot·ry
[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Both descriptions fit you to a T. From your baseless claims of choice in homosexuality, to your reliable bailing on the conversation if challenged to give proof that supports your statements, you're stubborn and intolerant.
Also, what VL @ 57 said. (And I noticed that you've seem to have bailed yet again - could VL's comment have anything to do with that?)
74
Seattleblues means never having to say you're sorry.
Cue the emotional music as Ali McGraw's priest tells her that she can't marry Ryan O'Neil in the church, because she's a Catholic and he's a Protestant.
Cue the emotional music as Ali McGraw's priest tells her that she can't marry Ryan O'Neil in the church, because she's a Catholic and he's a Protestant.
75
@57 and 73
Actually, helping a neighbor with a leaking roof took precedence over this thread. She's a wheelchair bound lesbian from Cambodia with a speech impediment whom rich corporations are screwing over for prescriptions and discriminating against for her union organizing activities.
Well, actually, she's just a nice grandmotherly type who can't afford a roofer, but that first description seemed more the category liberals would help.
Thanks for the definitions of bigot and bigotry. I took a breath of relief when reading them, since they so clearly don't apply to me. I mean, all that stuff about intolerance and hostility put me in the clear entirely. That was awfully nice of you two to do that for me.
You have a nice weekend now.
Actually, helping a neighbor with a leaking roof took precedence over this thread. She's a wheelchair bound lesbian from Cambodia with a speech impediment whom rich corporations are screwing over for prescriptions and discriminating against for her union organizing activities.
Well, actually, she's just a nice grandmotherly type who can't afford a roofer, but that first description seemed more the category liberals would help.
Thanks for the definitions of bigot and bigotry. I took a breath of relief when reading them, since they so clearly don't apply to me. I mean, all that stuff about intolerance and hostility put me in the clear entirely. That was awfully nice of you two to do that for me.
You have a nice weekend now.
76
@75: Nice to see you're only a pathological asshole to people you don't know. Unfortunately, that's most people.
77
Ah if only you had fallen off that roof! That would have been a nice weekend indeed. Better luck next time.
xoxo
xoxo
78
Dear Bigot,
Want to be reminded of your hostility? Just go back to any thread you've commented in where somebody mentioned that champion of the middle class and all around good guy, FDR.
Want to see evidence of your intolerance? Just go back to any thread (like this one even) where you claim homosexuality is a choice, are then confronted with numerous arguments and facts pointing out that this is clearly not true, but then you fail to acknowledge this, and continue to type the same lie over and over again. You can’t tolerate the FACT that homosexuality is caused by genetic and epigenetic factors, and not conscious choice.
Want to be reminded of your hostility? Just go back to any thread you've commented in where somebody mentioned that champion of the middle class and all around good guy, FDR.
Want to see evidence of your intolerance? Just go back to any thread (like this one even) where you claim homosexuality is a choice, are then confronted with numerous arguments and facts pointing out that this is clearly not true, but then you fail to acknowledge this, and continue to type the same lie over and over again. You can’t tolerate the FACT that homosexuality is caused by genetic and epigenetic factors, and not conscious choice.
79
Really Seattleblues,
"I mean, all that stuff about intolerance and hostility put me in the clear entirely"
You are consistently one of the meanest and intolerant persons on this forum. And apparently not just intellectually disingenuous, but a liar too. You clearlly don't believe that Christ paid the debt for you, because you can't live it. You bear no fruit on this forum, no
love nor joy nor peace nor patients nor kindness nor
gentleness nor self-control, and it would
seem you're proud of it too. Sad.
"I mean, all that stuff about intolerance and hostility put me in the clear entirely"
You are consistently one of the meanest and intolerant persons on this forum. And apparently not just intellectually disingenuous, but a liar too. You clearlly don't believe that Christ paid the debt for you, because you can't live it. You bear no fruit on this forum, no
love nor joy nor peace nor patients nor kindness nor
gentleness nor self-control, and it would
seem you're proud of it too. Sad.
80
SB, in an earlier thread which you abandoned when your ass was being handed to you, you stated this:
"Rights aren't defined by majority rule, but by the federal or applicable state constitutions and the laws based on them. I assume that you can see why this is so. To protect from tyranny of the majority we set a baseline at both federal and state levels ensuring basic rights without consideration of minority status."
Ummm . . . can you square your knowledge of this fact with your insistence that gay marriage is a Wrong Thing?
"Rights aren't defined by majority rule, but by the federal or applicable state constitutions and the laws based on them. I assume that you can see why this is so. To protect from tyranny of the majority we set a baseline at both federal and state levels ensuring basic rights without consideration of minority status."
Ummm . . . can you square your knowledge of this fact with your insistence that gay marriage is a Wrong Thing?
81
@77 So glad your back to wishing pain and death on SB. Civility is highly over rated.
@80 SB isn't big on squaring things. Mostly he just lets Fox News tell him what to think.
@80 SB isn't big on squaring things. Mostly he just lets Fox News tell him what to think.
83
I think the appropriate response to this is to refuse to issue Ms. Belforti a marriage license, and revoke any she might currently hold. Marriage is between two humans, not one man and one hyena.
84
@78
Ah, so hostility to one treasonous president links in your mind to hostility to gay men or lesbians. Interesting leap.
Claiming that acting on the predilection to homosexuality is a choice isn't intolerance. It's simply a fact. Which is all that I've ever claimed. Where the urge to homosexuality comes from is really moot in this regard.
Since homosexual behavior hurts no-one but those engaged in it, we shouldn't legally proscribe the behavior or use it as a means for discrimination. We aren't socially responsible to applaud or assist that decision either.
What bigot seems to mean to the most of those posting here is 'I disagree with your political/personal beliefs. Fanatically.' Again, check the dictionary. I think you'll find that isn't quite what the term is trying to get at.
For myself, I don't care. You and I will never meet or do business together or watch our kids soccer games together, so what you think of me is really immaterial. For the political and social dialogue in the larger community I do. Like it or not homosexuality is viewed with an emotional raised eyebrow by the majority of folks. So long as this emotion isn't accompanied by a physical assault or attempt to deprive you of your rights, that's really not your business.
Ah, so hostility to one treasonous president links in your mind to hostility to gay men or lesbians. Interesting leap.
Claiming that acting on the predilection to homosexuality is a choice isn't intolerance. It's simply a fact. Which is all that I've ever claimed. Where the urge to homosexuality comes from is really moot in this regard.
Since homosexual behavior hurts no-one but those engaged in it, we shouldn't legally proscribe the behavior or use it as a means for discrimination. We aren't socially responsible to applaud or assist that decision either.
What bigot seems to mean to the most of those posting here is 'I disagree with your political/personal beliefs. Fanatically.' Again, check the dictionary. I think you'll find that isn't quite what the term is trying to get at.
For myself, I don't care. You and I will never meet or do business together or watch our kids soccer games together, so what you think of me is really immaterial. For the political and social dialogue in the larger community I do. Like it or not homosexuality is viewed with an emotional raised eyebrow by the majority of folks. So long as this emotion isn't accompanied by a physical assault or attempt to deprive you of your rights, that's really not your business.
85
@80
With superlative ease.
As I've written many times, any gay man or lesbian has precisely the same marital rights I do. They can marry an opposite sex lover, just as I can. They can't marry a same sex lover, and neither can I. Whom either of may want to marry isn't relevant. Similarly, any gay man or lesbian can attain most of the rights of marriage by consulting an attorney. They can get powers of attorney, write wills, and so on.
Basically, the belief that gay citizens have any basis for claiming violation of civil rights is valid to you. But in reality, it simply isn't.
With superlative ease.
As I've written many times, any gay man or lesbian has precisely the same marital rights I do. They can marry an opposite sex lover, just as I can. They can't marry a same sex lover, and neither can I. Whom either of may want to marry isn't relevant. Similarly, any gay man or lesbian can attain most of the rights of marriage by consulting an attorney. They can get powers of attorney, write wills, and so on.
Basically, the belief that gay citizens have any basis for claiming violation of civil rights is valid to you. But in reality, it simply isn't.
86
@79
Usually I respectfully disagree with your postings. Today is no exception.
I might note that you're being very selective in your moral indignation however.
Apparently it doesn't apply to those being outright vulgar and malicious, as with Dan Savages attacks on Mr. Santorum. It doesn't apply to the lies and calumny against our former president, George Bush.
No, it only applies to the righteous anger at the sewer of dialogue and attacks on morality and family and integrity Savage and his little band of vulgarians inspire in any decent minded person. Good luck squaring that one with Christianity.
Usually I respectfully disagree with your postings. Today is no exception.
I might note that you're being very selective in your moral indignation however.
Apparently it doesn't apply to those being outright vulgar and malicious, as with Dan Savages attacks on Mr. Santorum. It doesn't apply to the lies and calumny against our former president, George Bush.
No, it only applies to the righteous anger at the sewer of dialogue and attacks on morality and family and integrity Savage and his little band of vulgarians inspire in any decent minded person. Good luck squaring that one with Christianity.
87
@84 What people mean when they say 'being gay isn't a choice' is that for many gay or lesbian identified people a heterosexual marriage isn't a realistic option. Mutual sexual attraction is a necessary component of a successful marriage. If a person is not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex than a heterosexual marriage is not a viable option. So gay people do have a choice, but their options are homosexuality or life long celibacy. You seem to think people choose the homosexual lifestyle because they prefer a non-stop butt sex orgy to a wife and kids.
88
@84: You are not a bigot because you disagree with us. You are a bigot because you insist that being homosexual and non-celibate makes someone inherently immoral, perverted, or otherwise distasteful.
Now, your argument that homosexuals should be held accountable for choosing to act on their desires could very easily be transferred to other issues. I am Jewish, both in terms of religion and ethnicity. Should I be looked down upon because I choose to practice my religion? It harms nobody but myself (if you choose to count a lack of bacon as harm). Being Jewish is against your religion, same as being gay, and there are plenty of people who think that Jewish values will bring an end to Christian civilization, with about the same amount of evidence as those who believe the same of homosexuality.
Every argument you've made against gay people having some nookie could also be made against Jewish people wearing kippot and speaking Hebrew. Hooking up with people who have the same junk as them is just how gay people are. When you attack people for innocuously being who they are, you are a bigot, plain and simple.
I understand perfectly well why you THINK you are not a bigot; you think that homosexuality isn't all that innocuous, and that by opposing it you are saving Western civilization from destruction. But the Nazis also thought that they were saving Western civilization from homosexuals, and from Jews and Romani too.
Open the door, get on the floor, everybody walk the dinosaur.
Now, your argument that homosexuals should be held accountable for choosing to act on their desires could very easily be transferred to other issues. I am Jewish, both in terms of religion and ethnicity. Should I be looked down upon because I choose to practice my religion? It harms nobody but myself (if you choose to count a lack of bacon as harm). Being Jewish is against your religion, same as being gay, and there are plenty of people who think that Jewish values will bring an end to Christian civilization, with about the same amount of evidence as those who believe the same of homosexuality.
Every argument you've made against gay people having some nookie could also be made against Jewish people wearing kippot and speaking Hebrew. Hooking up with people who have the same junk as them is just how gay people are. When you attack people for innocuously being who they are, you are a bigot, plain and simple.
I understand perfectly well why you THINK you are not a bigot; you think that homosexuality isn't all that innocuous, and that by opposing it you are saving Western civilization from destruction. But the Nazis also thought that they were saving Western civilization from homosexuals, and from Jews and Romani too.
Open the door, get on the floor, everybody walk the dinosaur.
89
@85: By your logic, there's nothing wrong with allowing same-sex marriage. Since gay people, straight people, and bischmexuals would all be allowed to marry a willing partner of the same gender, nobody would get any special privilege.
Some people want to have same-sex marriage, and it's not going to disenfranchise anyone, right? Why shouldn't we legalize it? You tell me that, Seattleblues.
Some people want to have same-sex marriage, and it's not going to disenfranchise anyone, right? Why shouldn't we legalize it? You tell me that, Seattleblues.
90
You're a hilarious parody, Seattleblues. That doesn't mean you aren't also a mean spirited one. All that means is that I don't take you seriously.
It is not my responsibility to square anything with Christianity.I don't use the term with regard to myself. I don't announce myself as devout. You do that. You make the proclamation that your being a devout protestant means you responsibly and thoughtfully act Christ-like. You have placed that burden, the burden to be Christ's representation on this forum, upon
yourself. It is your Bible that condemns you for not producing
fruits of the Holy Spirit.
My observation of you is that you can't or won't walk the walk. Your actions speak louder than your words. You take pleasure in making fun of others. You think statements like "Bawney Fwank" are funny, and that it is acceptable because you think you are a voice of morality and because you proclaim yourself Christian that you have "free pass" with Jesus. Right? Doesn't your Bible say that God sent his son to save the world in John 3:16? Doesn't John 13:34 state all will
know you are Jesus' disciple by the love you show others?
Does not 1 Corinthians 13 state that if you don't have love
that you are nothing but a resounding gong or clanging
cymbal? Your Bible makes it clear how a Christian is
supposed to behave and provide their witness. And it isn't my fault that I expected you to act in accordance to your
profession that you are a devout Christian. Consider me a
stickler, uncompromising even, but I can't see the purpose of proclaiming yourself a Christian and not making every effort to present yourself as one, to the best of your abilities, at all times. Nor can I see the purpose of claiming to believe something and then living your life in direct opposition of it, if
you really believe something deeply to your core than you live a life worthy of it. Actions speak to the truth of your chacter,
they speak louder than any proclamation.
As far as squaring the behavior of self-proclaimed atheist with Christianity goes, what would be the purpose in that? Atheists don't believe that God sent his son for the world, they don't believe that Jesus died for their sins or commanded them to love others. To an atheist the Bible is a piece of literature, it
contains no commands for them to not call their neighbors
names. It seems folly to expect an atheist to act Christ-like.
Sorry it is the self-proclaimed Christians job to act Christ-like,
to turn the cheek, and to live at peace with others.
Of course this is only my opinion. You are welcome to your own.
More...
It is not my responsibility to square anything with Christianity.I don't use the term with regard to myself. I don't announce myself as devout. You do that. You make the proclamation that your being a devout protestant means you responsibly and thoughtfully act Christ-like. You have placed that burden, the burden to be Christ's representation on this forum, upon
yourself. It is your Bible that condemns you for not producing
fruits of the Holy Spirit.
My observation of you is that you can't or won't walk the walk. Your actions speak louder than your words. You take pleasure in making fun of others. You think statements like "Bawney Fwank" are funny, and that it is acceptable because you think you are a voice of morality and because you proclaim yourself Christian that you have "free pass" with Jesus. Right? Doesn't your Bible say that God sent his son to save the world in John 3:16? Doesn't John 13:34 state all will
know you are Jesus' disciple by the love you show others?
Does not 1 Corinthians 13 state that if you don't have love
that you are nothing but a resounding gong or clanging
cymbal? Your Bible makes it clear how a Christian is
supposed to behave and provide their witness. And it isn't my fault that I expected you to act in accordance to your
profession that you are a devout Christian. Consider me a
stickler, uncompromising even, but I can't see the purpose of proclaiming yourself a Christian and not making every effort to present yourself as one, to the best of your abilities, at all times. Nor can I see the purpose of claiming to believe something and then living your life in direct opposition of it, if
you really believe something deeply to your core than you live a life worthy of it. Actions speak to the truth of your chacter,
they speak louder than any proclamation.
As far as squaring the behavior of self-proclaimed atheist with Christianity goes, what would be the purpose in that? Atheists don't believe that God sent his son for the world, they don't believe that Jesus died for their sins or commanded them to love others. To an atheist the Bible is a piece of literature, it
contains no commands for them to not call their neighbors
names. It seems folly to expect an atheist to act Christ-like.
Sorry it is the self-proclaimed Christians job to act Christ-like,
to turn the cheek, and to live at peace with others.
Of course this is only my opinion. You are welcome to your own.
93
I'm taking up for Seattleblues, because I think I know were hes coming from and that he and I see a lot a things the same way. The problem all started with that court case about misegenation in the sixties. The first judge said that God put the different races on different continents, and that showed real clear that God did'nt want the races to mix. This makes sense, because it says very clear in the Holy Bible that after Cain slew Abel he was given a mark, which is black skin, and he was made to wander, and after Ham saw Noah naked, he and his wife and their desendents were condemed to be slaves for the rest of there lives and for all eternity. Does it sound to you like a God who wanted the races to mix would do those things? No indeed!
But instead we got those activist judges in the supreme court in the 60's changing the marriage rules for everybody, and marriage is'nt what it use to be and we got more misegenation than you can shake a stick at. Hell, even President Obama is the product of misegenation! His parents would'nt of even been married in a whole lot a states, including mine! They probably would of been thrown in jail, and I'da been the one to do it!
There we were, with a system of marriage that worked, with whites only allowed to marry whites, and nigras only allowed to marry nigras, and so it was all equal, and the system worked! It worked, I tell you!
But now there's so much misegenation that it's gotten to where I don't hardly even want to bring my grandkids to the park or the zoo. I can't take'm out because they'll be exposed to racial combinations that only the Lord can figure, cause I sure as heck can't, and I have to explain to my grandkids that not everybody is a Christian, and that a lot of folks that call themself Christians are'nt the kind we are, and the kids are seeing all kinds of things I'd just prefer that they didn't have to see, and the fags and the dykes want to get married, too, I don't think the men who found our country would of liked it were people who aren'nt good Christians parade around like their normal.
More...
But instead we got those activist judges in the supreme court in the 60's changing the marriage rules for everybody, and marriage is'nt what it use to be and we got more misegenation than you can shake a stick at. Hell, even President Obama is the product of misegenation! His parents would'nt of even been married in a whole lot a states, including mine! They probably would of been thrown in jail, and I'da been the one to do it!
There we were, with a system of marriage that worked, with whites only allowed to marry whites, and nigras only allowed to marry nigras, and so it was all equal, and the system worked! It worked, I tell you!
But now there's so much misegenation that it's gotten to where I don't hardly even want to bring my grandkids to the park or the zoo. I can't take'm out because they'll be exposed to racial combinations that only the Lord can figure, cause I sure as heck can't, and I have to explain to my grandkids that not everybody is a Christian, and that a lot of folks that call themself Christians are'nt the kind we are, and the kids are seeing all kinds of things I'd just prefer that they didn't have to see, and the fags and the dykes want to get married, too, I don't think the men who found our country would of liked it were people who aren'nt good Christians parade around like their normal.
95
@94
I'll be fishing Wednesday, after driving to Spokane to visit family tomorrow.
You could wish my death by drowning or auto accident, provided you didn't wish the boat sunk or the car wrecked. Unless you want my family or fishing buddies hurt as well that is. Your call. Maybe a freak accident with a power tool would do the trick without the collateral damage though.
No thanks necessary. Just trying to do my bit to help my fellows. I'm kind of like a boy scout that way.
I'll be fishing Wednesday, after driving to Spokane to visit family tomorrow.
You could wish my death by drowning or auto accident, provided you didn't wish the boat sunk or the car wrecked. Unless you want my family or fishing buddies hurt as well that is. Your call. Maybe a freak accident with a power tool would do the trick without the collateral damage though.
No thanks necessary. Just trying to do my bit to help my fellows. I'm kind of like a boy scout that way.
97
@VL
I'm a bigot for having moral beliefs I don't seek to impose on others, but which I won't compromise in my own life?
Okay then.
You seem to have misread me though.
I don't think "that homosexuals should be held accountable for choosing to act on their desires." That will happen or not without my involvement. I just think society owes no-one accomodation for lifestyle choices they freely made. There is a difference.
Nor when I write of the de-evolution of society am I referencing homosexuality as such. I'm talking about rampant promiscuity, the decline of key social structures like marriage and family, and the other fruits of that eminently liberal doctrine of moral relativity which tend toward social decay.
As for the Godwin- bravissimo! I mean, given your background it takes real chutzpah to compare the imaginary plight of gays in America to the death camps of Nazi Germany. I wouldn't have had the nerve, myself, to equate an inability to redefine marriage for the vast majority of your fellow citizens with dying in gas chambers by the millions.
I'm a bigot for having moral beliefs I don't seek to impose on others, but which I won't compromise in my own life?
Okay then.
You seem to have misread me though.
I don't think "that homosexuals should be held accountable for choosing to act on their desires." That will happen or not without my involvement. I just think society owes no-one accomodation for lifestyle choices they freely made. There is a difference.
Nor when I write of the de-evolution of society am I referencing homosexuality as such. I'm talking about rampant promiscuity, the decline of key social structures like marriage and family, and the other fruits of that eminently liberal doctrine of moral relativity which tend toward social decay.
As for the Godwin- bravissimo! I mean, given your background it takes real chutzpah to compare the imaginary plight of gays in America to the death camps of Nazi Germany. I wouldn't have had the nerve, myself, to equate an inability to redefine marriage for the vast majority of your fellow citizens with dying in gas chambers by the millions.
98
@90
Your technique is to congratulate the morally depraved for their moral depravity and hope to accomplish... whatever you hope to accomplish thereby.
I won't say that wrong is right, or right is wrong simply to make others feel better. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
You seem to have studied Christianity in greater detail than most Christians I know. Congratulations. I respect your erudition, but can't agree with your conclusions.
Your technique is to congratulate the morally depraved for their moral depravity and hope to accomplish... whatever you hope to accomplish thereby.
I won't say that wrong is right, or right is wrong simply to make others feel better. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
You seem to have studied Christianity in greater detail than most Christians I know. Congratulations. I respect your erudition, but can't agree with your conclusions.
99
@98: You can't agree with Kim's conclusions, Seattleblues, because you are a bad person. And ignorant of history as well? You must be, since you conveniently gloss over the fact that the Nazis persecuted Gays with all the systematic verve that they did the Jews, so no Godwin there.
As for how I hope you meet your demise this weekend....hmmm, lets see. Fishing trip is it?
Ah! Got it!
I hope that one of your buddies accidentally hooks you with a fish hook in the eyeball ripping it out in the ensuing scream filled struggle. I hope the eye socket goes septic and you die of blood poisoning leaving your family beggared by medical bills, but that your wife re marries (after the briefest possible period of mourning) the lovely lesbian doctor, that despite her distaste for you and your bigotry, worked so valiantly to save your worthless life, and that they and your children go on to happy productive lives, leaving you to become that distasteful family secret that no speaks of.
Your welcome!
As for how I hope you meet your demise this weekend....hmmm, lets see. Fishing trip is it?
Ah! Got it!
I hope that one of your buddies accidentally hooks you with a fish hook in the eyeball ripping it out in the ensuing scream filled struggle. I hope the eye socket goes septic and you die of blood poisoning leaving your family beggared by medical bills, but that your wife re marries (after the briefest possible period of mourning) the lovely lesbian doctor, that despite her distaste for you and your bigotry, worked so valiantly to save your worthless life, and that they and your children go on to happy productive lives, leaving you to become that distasteful family secret that no speaks of.
Your welcome!
100
There's little that's more pathetic than someone who throws around the word "treason" whenever something happens in politics that they don't like.
101
I think we have vastly different ideas of what depravity is, Seattleblues.
I think malevolence garbed in pious righteousness is acting depraved. Not two people of the same gender being in love and adopting children from the foster care system, and then seeking to provide every legal benefit to the family they built together. That is love.
I hope that helps.
And have a safe trip. And if your fly fishing I hope the beauty of it all warms your heart.
I think malevolence garbed in pious righteousness is acting depraved. Not two people of the same gender being in love and adopting children from the foster care system, and then seeking to provide every legal benefit to the family they built together. That is love.
I hope that helps.
And have a safe trip. And if your fly fishing I hope the beauty of it all warms your heart.
103
@97: You can be a bigot without actually attempting to impose your bigoted beliefs on others. A neo-Nazi who doesn't agitate in favor of his ideas is a bigot nonetheless. A racist who keeps his ideas about melanin to himself is still just as much a bigot as if he had joined the KKK.
I must say, you backpedal impressively, claiming that you are not against homosexuality, but rather the nebulous threat of moral decay. If you have nothing against homosexuality, why do you oppose same-sex marriage?
Now, I'm not equating your actions with those of the Nazis. Rather, I am equating your motivation with theirs. Both you and they think that they are defending society from those who wish to co-opt or destroy it. Unfortunately, there is no honor in your cause.
I must say, you backpedal impressively, claiming that you are not against homosexuality, but rather the nebulous threat of moral decay. If you have nothing against homosexuality, why do you oppose same-sex marriage?
Now, I'm not equating your actions with those of the Nazis. Rather, I am equating your motivation with theirs. Both you and they think that they are defending society from those who wish to co-opt or destroy it. Unfortunately, there is no honor in your cause.
104
can anyone say discrimination... perhaps even a "hate" crime. ...next she'll be stopping interracial marriages... divorces... perhaps she won't give out a business license that allows a business to run 7 days a week, since her beliefs probably state you can't work on the sabbath... what next Barbara?
Really, if Barbara wants to follow her religious beliefs, then she has every right to quit and find a job that allows her to do so. BUT, Her right to religious beliefs stop at the point they inflict damage to others, physical or mental!
Really, if Barbara wants to follow her religious beliefs, then she has every right to quit and find a job that allows her to do so. BUT, Her right to religious beliefs stop at the point they inflict damage to others, physical or mental!
105
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." On July 13, 2011, the New York State Department of Health issued an informational memorandum to all New York town and city clerks regarding the recent amendments to the Domestic Relations Law, which are also known as the Marriage Equality Act. The memorandum summarized the changes to the Domestic Relations Law caused by the amendments and made clear that those
changes would take effect on July 24, 2011. Among the changes listed is the following: "No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex.
Bottom line, she should resign.
changes would take effect on July 24, 2011. Among the changes listed is the following: "No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex.
Bottom line, she should resign.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (105) RSS