Comments about ‘Gay marriage, religion issues in NY clerk race’

I'm glad I don't live in New York. I have no desire to ever have to deal with this conflict. I have no desire to be cruel, but it would be emotionally painful for me to give out something to someone I thought was bad for them. I'm proud of those people mentioned who quit their jobs rather than compromise their values.

That should be obvious. If you can't do the job based on your beliefs, then forego the job.

"There are too many references in the Bible that say this is not right."
---

Does she issue licenses to those who are living together prior to marriage? Sinners!

How about those eating shellfish?

Or those wearing mixed fibers?

Or those who have committed murder?

Or thieves?

Which sinners are welcome and which sinners aren't?

Does she get to pick and choose?

==========
@Clarissa;

Please explain how marriage is bad for GLBT couples? If it is good for heterosexuals it is good for homosexuals as well.

Where in any scripture is discrimination and bigotry listed as a value?

By asking that couples make an appointment, she is inconveniencing ALL couples so that her religious beliefs could be accomodated. How many LDS have taken jobs requiring them to work on Sunday and then simply told the employer that they won't work Sundays because of their faith? Probably few if any. they simply don't take the job. This lady should quit.

She definately shouldn't ask the government to pay a deputy extra to do part of her job. If she paid the deputy's salary and benefits, she'd get more sympathy, but she is asking the taxpayers to pay extra so that her beliefs could be accomodated. She's also asking that the public be inconvenienced by asking that couples make appointments rather than coming in when they want.

She may feel that she is right religiously, but she couldn't be more wrong as a civil servant.

Wish I could cast a vote for Rose. Always refreshing to see someone stand up for what is right. Hopefully she is reelected.

It seems to me, this Lady feels that since she was elected as city clerk- she also has become the town's Arbriter on what is a Biblical or not. and as such what job functions she as a city employee will and won't do

While the Bible is silent on the issue of gay-marriage. It is not on the issue of divorce. To be consistent Biblically, Does she not ask the heterosexual couples applying for a marriage license if they were once divorced. Jesus was against divorce with some caveats. Therefore, to be consistent she should also have the town deputy do this job function also.

'Hopefully she is reelected.' - Belching Cow | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 26, 2011

When she starts openly discriminating against her own constiuency...?

Unlikely.

I said this to Bob Bennett's office before he failed to get a nomination...

'Why would I support you, if you do not support me?'

If Ms. Belforti has religious objections to marriage equality for Gay couples, my advice to her is simple: DON'T marry someone of the same sex, and politely decline any invitations to Gay weddings that you receive. But you do NOT have the right to deny service to someone who is acting in accordance with the law! What she essentially is doing is forcing OTHER people to abide by HER personal religious beliefs.

Part of Ms. Belforti's job description is to issue marriage licenses to couples who are legally qualified to obtain them. If she is unable to fulfill her job requirements, she needs to find a new line of work.

ABout 20 years ago there was a student at the Univesity of Utah named Rocky O'Donovan. He was a Quaker. I know about this because he was active in protesting the first Gulf War. He openly said that we should not go to war because Jesus taught us to love. It was his religion and it did enter into politics.

When there was a draft Quakers were allowed to be conscientous objectors because their beliefs did not permit them to go to war. I think that was fine. Otherwise we would have had to force people to choose between their religion and penalties such as jail.

It is a way to be inclusive. I think that they should do the same in New York.

And for the gays here who look down on religions, Rocky O'Donovan was also the president of the Lesbian and Gay Student union.

Gay marriage is not a right. And I shall prove it-

State recognition for:
* traditional marriage only
* gay couples only
* any combination of people
* my wanting to marry anything, including my mailbox

or

State not recognizing anything and staying out of it.

-------

The fact that the state could choose not to be involved at all- the fact that this is even an option PROVES that state recognition is not a right, but a choice of the state. It may not be equal to say 'one person gets this from the state and another gets less' but we don't live in a country where everyone gets dished the same thing... we live in a country where people are free to CHOOSE what THEY do, what they vote, and so on.

State recognition is the PEOPLE's to give. Freedom to act is not being prohibited here. But there is no such freedom as "You must sign a document acknowledging me" as that is forcing someone ELSE.

I ask liberals this:

The founding fathers didn't agree that it was a right. So how do you justify to them that their own document protected it. It didn't protect it then, so why now?

@VoR;

Liberty and Freedom belong to ALL of us, not the "State".

A voice of Reason
It may not be equal to say 'one person gets this from the state and another gets less' but we don't live in a country where everyone gets dished the same thing...

LDS4
What happened to "Equal Protection of Laws"? "Full Faith & Credit"?

Why are heterosexuals given "special rights"?

Didn't we LDS suffer when others denied us "Equal Protection of Laws"?

Why the double standard?

@Pagan
I'm not sure why you would expect someone to support what they think is immoral. Politicians should not be supporting things they don't believe are right to get votes, that is not ethical in my book.

Ranch, you stated "Liberty and Freedom belong to ALL of us, not the State."

I agree, completely. However, nothing is taken when the people decide to not recognize your private institution.

You can live your life, have a private marriage ceremony, and so on. No one is stopping you and your individual liberties when WE DECIDE that WE aren't going to give it our stamp of approval.

A lack of "State recognition" does not takes away someone's right to be free. If the people of America voted not to accept Mormon marriages, that's one thing. Invading Mormon homes, raping, and murdering, etc. (which historically has happened) then YES, freedom is infringed. Hospital visitation is a freedom issue I support; but state RECOGNITION isn't. However, such issues are not legally inseparable. I simply don't endorse you. I don't take anything away.

State recognition does not take any freedom away that you inherently have by birth. WE ordained OUR government. We own an equal share in this government. When gays constantly try to invalidate my vote, they seek to take away what belongs to me.

Freedom is yours. But the state belongs to ALL of us, not just gays or liberals.

@VoR;

"No one is stopping you and your individual liberties when WE DECIDE that WE aren't going to give it our stamp of approval."

"I simply don't endorse you."

"State recognition does not take any freedom away ..."

---

Unless the government stops recognizing and providing benefits for marriages of heterosexual Citizens, then the government has no business refusing to recognize/provide benefits for marriages of GLBT Citizens.

We TOO are Citizens of this country. We too pay taxes. Equal protection under the law entails EQUAL treatment of ALL Citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

Your "approval" isn't necessary. The CONSTITUTION says that Equal Protection Under the Law IS the law of the land - with or without YOUR endorsement.

"But the state belongs to ALL of us, not just gays or liberals" -- EXACTLY!!!!

It belongs to US TOO. You can't say that and then turn around and say: "But you don't get the protections of the state because WE don't endorse you."

That, sir, is the ultimate in hypocrisy. "I'll take the benefits, but you don't get any", "I get recognized, but you can't".

We are American Citizens and we DESERVE equal protection and recognition.

lds4gaymarriage,

A pro-family state is compatible with democracy and individual freedom. Liberalism has twisted "Equal protection" to claim otherwise, but this is a deception.

Interpretation 1 - "The law must equally protect freedom for all citizens"

I addressed this in my comment regarding how the state is not taking freedom away from anyone... just not endorsing them. The point, is that we are are equally free and the law protects this. But others recognizing you has nothing to do with your freedom.

Interpretation 2 - The premise that "The law must give equally to everyone"

First, this point is invalidated as the state is equally serving all Americans this service already. The state is not denying people heterosexual marriage. You are just as entitled to the same state recognition as everyone else by this premise.

Second, I and other conservatives would disagree with this interpretation of the law either way, making your argument again less effective. We are equally free, not equally entitled. Equality used to mean that, but liberalism or progressivism has been twisted to mean marxism. Equality is not about 'what you get from others' but about your equal right to make your life what you will.

AVOR
.. the state is not taking freedom away from anyone... just not endorsing them. .. we are equally free and the law protects this.
LDS4
Freedoms arent removed, but state granted perks are. Youd scream bloody murder if the IRS took away the 1000+ perks from LDS couples despite no freedoms being harmed. Government must treat all equally.

AVOR
The state is not denying people heterosexual marriage. You are just as entitled to the same state recognition as everyone else by this premise.
LDS4
Christians in Saudi Arabia ask the state for the right to worship in public. The Saudis say that they already have that right if they choose to become Muslims. Choosing to be Christian and choosing a homosexual marriage over a heterosexual one are both choices. No rights are harmed. Right?

AVOR
We are equally free, not equally entitledEquality is not about 'what you get from others' but about your equal right to make your life what you will.
LDS4
Agreed, but the government is required to treat all equally, hence Equal Protection. There are no 2nd class citizens and none are more equal than others as you are advocating.

RE;LDS4, Why are heterosexuals given "special rights"?

Have you ever heard of the The Adamic covenant? Divine directive for mankind to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Jesus said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh(MT 19:5
)
St. Paul , Appoint Elders in every town as I directed you if anyone is above reproach, the husband of ONE wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery) or insubordination. (Titus 1:5,6 NIV)

donn
RE;LDS4, Why are heterosexuals given "special rights"?

Have you ever heard of the The Adamic covenant? Divine directive for mankind to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Jesus said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh(MT 19:5)

St. Paul ... the husband of ONE wife, ... (Titus 1:5,6 NIV)

LDS4
I am ONLY refering to secular rights granted by our secular government based on secular criteria serving a secular purpose. When a group of people are given rights that only they can use, those are "special rights". Same-sex couples don't get the 1000+ perks/rights/benefits offered by the federal government to married people. those are "special rights" just for straights.

I SINCERELY appreciate you referencing scripture in your response. As someone who values scripture, perhaps you can help me. No one else has. prior to Prop.8, gays in CA had the secular right to marry. 1 Cor. 10:29 denounces using ones morals to justify infringing upon the rights of others. Should believers have voted for prop.8?

LDS4 said, 1 Cor. 10:29 denounces using ones morals to justify infringing upon the rights of others. Should believers have voted for prop.8?

The exercise of ones freedom is to be governed by whether it will be bring glory to God.
Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer...(Jude 1:7 NIV)

donn
LDS4 said, 1 Cor. 10:29 denounces using ones morals to justify infringing upon the rights of others. Should believers have voted for prop.8?

The exercise of ones freedom is to be governed by whether it will be bring glory to God.

LDS4
I don't recall 1 Cor. 10:29 having a footnote stating that an exception is made to allow the freedom of others to be infringed if it brings God glory. That logic promotes theocracies. It has lead to Saudi Arabia banning Bibles and Christian churches because banning them brings Allah glory. How can we condemn the torture of Christians and the burning of churches in Egypt when the radicals are simply glorifying Allah in doing those things? The rights of those Christians can be infriged if it glorifies God. Correct?

The problem with many people of faith when it comes to wanting to outlaw sin is that they have a hard time being logically consistent when they are in the minority.