Rose Marie Belforti, a part-time town clerk for the small town of Ledyard, a rural farming community in the Finger Lakes region of New York State, won her reelection on Tuesday, November 8; however, her struggle is just beginning. The soft-spoken Belforti finds herself on the frontline in the battle between the aggressive same-sex-marriage promoters and those who  uphold traditional values.

Christian Canary in the Secular Coal Mine

The groundwork for this battle was laid when the so-called “Marriage Equality Act” was signed into law by New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo this past August. As the town Clerk of Ledyard, Belforti, who is a Christian deeply committed to her faith, found herself in a conundrum, as one of the many responsibilities of the town clerk is to issue marriage licenses.

Governor Cuomo, who claims to be Catholic yet seems to reject nearly every part of Catholic doctrine, didn't pull punches when he warned Christians, “The law is the law. When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose which laws."

In response, some town clerks who take their Christian faith seriously resigned their positions. Belforti, on the other hand, did not think that she should just quit because of her biblical beliefs, so she sought another option that would allow her to retain her part-time position and meet the demands of the job without having to compromise her conscience.

She offered a plan whereby she could delegate the signing of marriage licenses to a deputy. Ledyard, with a population of just under 2,000, issues only a handful of licenses a year. This seemed like a fair arrangement for both Belforti and the town of Ledyard, where homosexual couples could still receive their marriage licenses under the new law, but she would not have to compromise her Christian beliefs.

Unfortunately for Belforti, the players on the other side of the “Marriage Equality” debate did not see things the same way. Almost immediately after publicly announcing her intentions, Belforti found herself the target of an aggressive attack campaign from combative secularists and homosexual activists.

The promoters of same-sex marriage aligned against her even though, as her defenders point out, Belforti bent over backward to accommodate the new law and her proposal would not have had any adverse impact on homosexual couples. The only difference from before the law was passed was that it wouldn’t be her signature on the issued license. A lesbian couple from Florida, who own some property in Ledyard, are contemplating a possible lawsuit with the powerful, liberal D.C.-based law firm, People for the American Way (PFAW).   

If the World Hate You, Know Ye, That It Hath Hated Me Before You   

The mild-mannered Belforti, a grandmother and artisan cheese farmer, has been the subject of almost daily offensive e-mails, phone calls, and other attacks for standing up for her Christian beliefs. The following is a sampling of the remarks from opponents found in the comment section of news articles about her case. A review of them gives the reader an insight into the mindset of those who are vehemently opposed to her:

“Sue the pants off her, fire her, and throw her in jail.”

“Look, Ms. Belforti: You are a PUBLIC SERVANT! No one cares that you follow the false religion Christianity. LOL Ok? If you allow your filthy religion to impede you in your duties, then maybe you should resign.”

“She can go be a religious bigot at her church or to her cows.”

“She should be fired. Religious beliefs have no business in state mandated laws.”

“Ancient mythology and superstition should absolutely determine whether someone should do the job they were hired to do. If the perfomance of the job conflicts with the mythology and superstition ... then plainly ...­ one should not have to do the job. Really? This is what the supporters of Rose Marie Belforti are saying.”

“Lets [sic] bring back the Roman lions for these misguided folks.”

“Find a write-in candidate and vote her out. It's the easiest way to deal with this. THEN go after her business interests. After all SHE is the one who CHOSE to make a political statement here!”

“We can't put her six feet under, but we can put her business six feet under. Stop buying her products whatever they are today. Then she will lose her job and her livelihood.”

As mentioned in the comments above, even with all the venomous attacks already directed at her, there is another effort underway to boycott her meager artisan cheese dairy farm. Removal from office and attempted humiliation are not enough for some; they want to bankrupt her as well. [Any who feel sympathy for Mrs. Belforti's plight may feel free to purchase some of her artisan cheese for their upcoming Thanksgiving feast.]

Christians Need Not Apply

There is more to this story than just the overwhelming forces teaming up against a town clerk and small-town dairy farmer. Belforti is being made an example of for the purpose of sending a message. That message is clear to anyone who reviews the details of this episode in New York State politics: If you are a Christian and you take your religious beliefs seriously, then you must give up any aspirations to public office.

The American people were told by supporters of "marriage equality" that this meant that they were recognizing the rights of individuals. But observers have pointed out that the "rights of individuals" being discussed are certainly not the natural rights inherent in the Natural Law so eloquently espoused by St. Thomas Aquinas and famously enshrined in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. The "rights of individuals" are nowhere to be found, and many have noted that it appears that this town clerk’s right to freedom of religious expression has been banished down the memory hole.

However, not all is lost just yet for Rose Marie Belforti. Supporters are rallying to her side. The organization New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms has begun zealously defending her and promoting her cause nationally. They even created a YouTube video that has gone viral and garnered even more support. The national Christian legal defense organization Alliance Defense Fund is also standing by to handle her case when necessary. Meanwhile, other supporters have put together an informative website to tell her side of the story.

This case will only draw more national attention over the coming months because of its immense significance for both Christians and militant secularists and homosexual activists seeking to crush any opposition to same-sex marriage. Will Christians be allowed the accommodation of their religious beliefs and freedom of conscience in the public workplace? Or will the hostile secularists be allowed to stamp out any expression of one's faith if it conflicts with their moral relativism?  Belforti’s decision to stand up for what she believes might answer these questions. Christians from across the nation will be watching her case closely because of its dire implications for all of them.

Patrick Krey, Esq. is president of Catholic Attorneys for Life and Liberty

Photo of Governor Andrew Cuomo: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (40)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Amanda said:

Strong lady! I hope she gets all the support she needs to hang in there. I'm sad homosexual activists demand a freedom they won't give others. That is the nature of this particular beast.

November 11, 2011

David in Houston said:

She isn't working at a church... Just out of curiosity, did Mrs. Belforti ever 'screen' previous marriage applicants to make sure that they were all religious? Because she seems to be under the impression that only Christians are qualified to get married in our country. Of course that isn't the case. Non-religious (and even some religious) straight couples get married every single day at their city hall. Those couples know that marriage is a secular institution (a church ceremony is optional), and that city hall is not affiliated with any religious institution. They also know that the job of city clerk is not a religious position; and that couples are not required to pass some arbitrary religious test that city clerks have chosen to follow for themselves. Mrs. Belforti should also be aware that the state of New York provides the marriage license, not the church; and she's isn't officiating a wedding ceremony, she's basically a notary public signing a legal document. One has to wonder if Rose Marie would sign a marriage license for an interracial couple or a Jewish or Muslim couple? Who knows? The Bible was used as justification to deny interracial marriage. So if Rose Marie felt strongly about it, who's to say she couldn't? One would think that being a public servant actually means that you have to serve all of the public, regardless of your chosen beliefs and personal prejudices.

November 12, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

You're missing the point, David. She's not denying any one a license. She's just choosing not to put her name on that. What is so wrong with that? Isn't she entitled to her Christian beliefs, which, unlike the ones you alluded to, are consistent not only among Christians but also the great majority of Jews and Muslims? New York State can't change moral beliefs which have been faithfully followed for 2,000 years by passing a law.

November 12, 2011

Greg B. said:

Insanity Patrick Krey - It is you who is missing the point. And you're missing it big time. Your assertions are absurd. The concept of religious freedom and what is constitutionally protected has been so twisted and warped by folks desperate to advance the anti-gay agenda and make victims and martyrs out of small minded bigots that it no longer recognizable. There is no guarantee that there will be five hundred foot radius around you at all times free from anything and everything that conflicts with your world view. Issuing marriage licenses is part of Belforti's job, it's not an act of religious worship. There are some people who have deeply held religious convictions that women shouldn't drive. Guess what - they can't expect to have a job at the DMV, turn away every female customer and claim "religious liberty" when they're called on it. Can you be honest for a minute and admit that you wouldn't be standing up for Belforti if she had deeply held religious beliefs against interracial and interfaith marriages and was seeking to turn mixed race and mixed faith couples away. And before anyone gives the old "but sexual orientation and race aren't the same" spiel, spare us. The argument that the law must accommodate the religiously based views on homosexuality of one person but not the religiously based views on race of another is simply indefensible. The law is the law. And in New York, whether or not you like it, the law says that a same-sex couple has a right to a civil marriage license, indistinguishable from that of an opposite sex couple. And if a same-sex couple steps up to the counter and is denied, it is THEIR civil rights that are being violated. I can't wrap my head around the fact that there are so many people out there like you who can easily ignore that fact and instead suggest that somehow the civil rights violation occurs when a person who is opposed to marriage equality has to spend five uncomfortable minutes doing their job and issuing a license to same-sex couple. Do you really think that is rational? It's absolutely ludicrous. Go to Southern Equality's website and watch the videos of clerks in North Carolina rejecting marriage license applications from same-sex couples. Despite their deeply held beliefs that gay and lesbian couples should have marriage rights, they're turning them away because it's the law. They're not ignoring the law and issuing the licenses anyway. They're not passing the couples on to another clerk who opposes same-sex marriage and would therefore be more comfortable rejecting their applications. And, most importantly, their not lawyering up and threatening to sue the state because their job duties conflict with their deeply held beliefs about marriage equality. Again, please watch the videos, they help shine a light on how absolutely ridiculous this whole meme of trying to turn folks like Belforti into persecuted victims really is.

November 14, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Turning away? Greg, did you read the article? Rose Marie is not turning any one away. She just isn't issuing the license herself. So, again, I ask: what is so wrong with Rose Marie not having to compromise her religious beliefs? And be careful with liberally throwing around the word "bigot." If believing sodomy is a sin, then the Pope and the entire Catholic Church are "bigots" in your view.

November 14, 2011

Greg B. said:

... Yes, I read the article. I've read her story at least a hundred times over the past months. Rose Marie isn't being asked to "compromise her religious beliefs", she's being asked to obey the law and do her job. Nobody is asking her to herself get married to a woman - that would be compromising her religious beliefs. But you ignored a major point of my comment, so I'll ask again. If you think there's nothing wrong with what Beforti is doing, do you think it's right for a clerk who has religious opposition to interracial marriage to refuse to issue a license a couple in which one party is white and one is black? If your answer is 'no', please explain the inconsistency. And I know how to use the word bigot. Just because bigotry is found in the Bible doesn't mean it's not bigotry.

November 14, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

If I answer your question, will you answer mine? So Greg, who just referred to almost all Christians as bigots, is now equating discriminating against someone based on their race with moral objections to sodomy. The differences there are quite obvious and extremely offensive to the millions of African-Americans who oppose same-sex "marriage." I understand that homosexual activists are spending a lot of time and money trying to make this very same point but it fails under any scrutiny. Christians made up a huge portion of both the abolitionist and civil rights movements and there is a proud tradition of Christians opposing racism. There was only a fringe few Christians who tried to support racism with the Bible whereas there is almost universal opposition to sodomy among Christians (both Protestants and Catholic) which has consistently been so throughout Christian history. The NYS government may want to issue a piece of paper to two people of the same gender and refer to it as a "marriage" but that doesn't mean faithful Christians are going to accept that radical redefinition. So, Greg, my question to you is: if they still get their license, then what is the problem? Will you only be happy when all Christians are forced "into the closet?"

November 14, 2011

Greg B. said:

Reponse Part 1 “just referred to almost all Christians as bigots” Nope, what I said was that the Bible contains bigotry. Not all Christians follow or agree with every word of the Bible (imagine the world we’d live in if they did). The Bible was written by men who were not infallible. There is much in the Bible that prohibits race-mixing too. Would you not describe someone who opposes the mixing of races and supports laws the enforce those views as bigoted? Be honest. “is now equating discriminating against someone based on their race with moral objections to sodomy” Thank you for confirming what I suggested in my earlier comment – that you when you talk about “religious freedom”, what’s protected in the Constitution, and what the government is obligated to enforce, you’re really just talking about Bible-based Christian views on homosexuality. That’s a pretty warped view of freedom. Who are you to demand that your religious views on homosexuality be given preference over another person’s religious views on race? Both can be justified by quoting Bible verses. “The differences there are quite obvious and extremely offensive to the millions of African-Americans who oppose same-sex "marriage." Again, obvious to you because you choose to believe anti-homosexuality verses from the Bible while rejecting anti-race mixing ones. But our shared, secular government isn’t obligated to protect some religious views over others or allow discrimination against one group because “good Christians” disapprove of them. Millions of African-Americans may indeed oppose same-sex marriage (it’s a legal term, no condescending quotes required). But what’s your point? It doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry. Yes, someone who is part of a historically disfavored minority is capable of bigotry against another historically disfavored minority. Race and sexual orientation are each unique aspects of human existence. Thus, there is no perfect analogy for either. Just because discrimination in this country has historically been based on skin color doesn’t mean that those who experience discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or even religion (which is a chosen behavior) have no right to demand social justice. And your reference to gays and lesbians simply with the word “sodomy” as intentionally offensive as it is, ignores the fact that heterosexuals also engage in “sodomy”. But just because a town clerk may be morally opposed to the acts that a particular bride and groom plan to perform on each other in the honeymoon suite, she doesn’t have the right to reject their marriage license application.

November 15, 2011

Greg B. said:

Response Part 2 “Christians made up a huge portion of both the abolitionist and civil rights movements and there is a proud tradition of Christians opposing racism. There was only a fringe few Christians who tried to support racism with the Bible whereas there is almost universal opposition to sodomy among Christians (both Protestants and Catholic) which has consistently been so throughout Christian history.” Again, your point? Just because some Christians were involved in fighting for racial equality in the past doesn’t mean that some Christians aren’t capable of bigotry today. But there you go again – you’re trying to suggest that because a smaller number of Christians are racist than are homophobic, the law is required to protect the views of the homophobes but not the racists. You think that government only has an obligation to protect the religious views of the majority. Do I need to point out to you all of the things that are wrong with that assertion? Sorry, Mr. Krey, that’s not how religious freedom works and it’s the exact opposite of one of the most important founding principles of this nation. I shouldn’t need to tell you that. “The NYS government may want to issue a piece of paper to two people of the same gender and refer to it as a "marriage" but that doesn't mean faithful Christians are going to accept that radical redefinition.” Again with the condescending quotes... Civil marriage is civil marriage. In NY, marriage between two people of the same sex is just as legally valid as between two people of the opposite sex. The state is referring to it as marriage because it is marriage. The concept is far from radical. But I’m not sure what you mean by “accept that definition”. Faithful Christians are free to continue to hold any view of it they want but they’re not free to ignore the law if they’re being paid to uphold it. A faithful Christian Dept. of Taxation employee can’t reject the tax return of a legally married same-sex couple. A faithful Christian nurse can’t tell a man that he can’t enter his husband’s hospital room. And a faithful Christian town clerk can’t reject the marriage license of a legally qualified same-sex couple.

November 15, 2011

Greg B. said:

Response Part 3 “if they still get their license, then what is the problem?” Are you familiar with the back story on Belforti? Are you aware that she denied a lesbian couple a marriage license, telling them one of her “deputies” would have to issue it but that none of those deputies was available? THAT is the problem. “Will you only be happy when all Christians are forced "into the closet?" Um, no. And this attempt to claim religious persecution is bogus. Christians can continue to preach any Bible verses to defend any moral views that want. But I’ll be happy when they stop hiding behind their twisted version of religious liberty while demanding that the law allow them to discriminate without consequence. I’ll be happy when they stop demanding that their bigotry be enshrined into law. From your comments and tone (e.g. sodomy) it’s pretty clear who wants to force who into the closet.

November 15, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Learn to summarize your thoughts Greg, I can see from your writings that you are not very familiar with Christianity. But based on your last comment, let me just ask you, once again, would you be fine with it if the lesbian couple still get their license but she doesn't sign it?

November 15, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Whatever happened to live and let live? It appears to many Christians that homsexual militants are aggressively trying to force acceptance of their life-style on others through the use of government. The hostility and anger this woman has endured because of her beliefs is a warning sign to all.

November 15, 2011

Greg B. said:

Learn what religious liberty means I was raised in a devout Catholic home. I'm familiar with Christianity and what the Bible says. You should familiarize yourself with the founding principles of our nation, as inconvenient as you may find them to be. If someone else had seen the lesbian couple approach the counter that day and chose to serve them to let Belforti take a pass, then nobody would be the wiser and we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we. But you and I both know that's not what occurred. They were sent away and told to come back another time. That's wrong. If Belforti was simply looking to manage staff responsibilities behind the scenes while ensuring the law was followed, she wouldn't be lawyered up and taking her claims of victimization on a publicity tour.

November 15, 2011

David in Houston said:

Really? "It appears to many Christians that homsexual militants are aggressively trying to force acceptance of their life-style on others through the use of government." Really? Because it sounds more like Christian militants are trying to force acceptance of their "chosen" lifestyle on others through the use of government. Why does Rose Marie think she has the right to force everyone else in society to bend to her personal, chosen beliefs? In what other context does this ever happen? If she happened to be Hindu, would she have the right to ban meat products from the office refrigerator? Of course not. But she would be able to enforce that religious rule in the privacy of her own home. Sorry, but you can't practice your religious beliefs in a secular government job if those beliefs impact other people's lives. So to answer your question, no, I don't think it would be acceptable for her to get someone else to do her job because of her chosen beliefs. She never used her religious beliefs to 'screen' straight couples to make sure that she was signing-off on 'religious' marriages. So she can't argue that marriage is solely a Christian sacrament when it's very possible that she's 'approved' of atheist couples and those of different faiths. It sounds like this had more to do with religion-sanctioned homophobia than actual marriage.

November 15, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Did not answer the question Well, Brian, you have your facts wrong. What you say happened is not the case. She posted her stance of having a deputy handle the licensing for all couples, not just same-sex ones, before the out-of-state lesbian couple even sought a license. And they are the ones who got "lawyered up" instead of scheduling an appointment with the deputy. If they just followed her proposed policy where she wouldn't have to sign the license herself, they would probably have their license. Is it the policy you're objecting to? Or Mrs. Belforti herself? I have studied this nation's founding and I see a strong rejection of the concept of positive law (the law is whatever the government says it is and there is no higher power) whereas you see the opposite. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

November 15, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Who is she forcing her views on, David? I fail to see how Belforti forced her views on any one from abstaining from what she deems to be morally objectionable. On the other hand, the ones seeking to drag her through the courts seem intent on forcing their views on her.

November 15, 2011

Greg B. said:

... "If they just followed her proposed policy" It's Greg by the way. Why should they? Belforti has no right to institute a policy in a public office in order to accommodate her prejudices. She was the one out of line, not the legally eligible lesbian couple who expected to be treated like everyone else and not inconvenienced to avoid offending some narrow minded woman who disapproves of them. Please point me to where in the U.S. Constitution you find your justification for claiming that religious-based anti-gay views should be given preference over other religious-based views. While you're at it, show me where it gives priority to the religious liberty of Christians over that of others.

November 15, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Intolerance in action I think Greg does a good job showing the intolerance for Christian beliefs among militant activists. Rose's only option was ignore her Christian convictions to issue the license or quit the job. Any one who thinks sodomy is a sin is a bigot and should be shunned from public office. Thank you for making my point for me, Greg. Quick question, Greg, why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? They're consenting adults right? Don't they deserve equality?

November 15, 2011

Greg B. said:

You're intolerant because you won't tolerate my intolerance.... ...yeah, we've heard that one before. But here we go, the "incest" argument. What's next, Patrick - comments about marrying dogs and small children? Reproduction among closely related people, like siblings, has a much higher chance of resulting in birth defects. But thank you for proving my point - you began by trying to claim your position was based on "religious freedom" - it's right there in the title. But now that you've been challenged, we see you're really just motivated by good old fashioned anti-gay animus. You can try to veil your views in rhetoric about constitutional freedoms and liberty all you want but your unwillingness to apply your "logic" to other situations proves that all you're really looking for is the government's stamp on your religious based anti-gay bigotry.

November 15, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Greg's strategy: dodge question and repeatedly call opponent a bigot The reason I brought up incest (or bigamy for that matter) is because it rests on the same "consenting adults" argument which you so radically adopt and demonize any one who opposes it. Do you think it would be fair for those people to call you a bigot for not recognizing them as equally as valid as you? And your concerns about the genetic implications of siblings marrying are similar to others' concerns about the harmful effects of gay marriage on a society or adopted children being raised by homosexuals. Why are only you permitted to judge when a person should be married? My views on homosexuals are the same as the Catholic Church. If I am a bigot then the entire Church are bigots as well in your view.

November 15, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Primer on the Catholic view of "Gay Marriage" http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage "Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies . . . must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The Catechism describes homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered": "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."4 Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51 Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54 Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

November 15, 2011

Greg B. said:

I was told to summarize my thoughts. Bigotry summarizes your views accurately. I answered the question. It's no different than a clerk who doesn't want to deal with an interracial couple. If there's some internal arrangement coworkers that someone else handles mixed-race couples, we'll never know about it. If that mixed race couple is sent away and told to come back another time, we have a problem. And it is a valid comparison - a same-sex couple is just as legally qualified as a mixed race couple. Again, you're out of line demanding that the law accommodate your anti-gay religious/moral views but not the anti-race mixing views of another. And your comparison of sexual orientation to someone who wants to marry their sibling is just absurd. Wanting to marry your sister is not a sexual orientation. The Catholic Church's views are bigoted. Fortunately not all Catholics agree with those views. There is not room here to even begin to dissect your offensively ignorant rant on health issues and gay men. You lost what little credibility you have left. I'll be happy to respond to it another forum if you really can't see the stunning stupidity of what you just put out there.

November 16, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Greg makes conclusory statements and runs away I think Greg's inability to explain his position as well as his constant smears of bigotry show us what we are dealing with. This wouldn't be a problem if people like Greg weren't trying to use government power to force their agenda on others. We could just each go our separate ways and live the life styles we choose but people like Greg are not content with that. They want every one to not only condone their life style but endorse it as well.

November 16, 2011

Greg B. said:

Not running away - still here. I'm not trying to force an agenda on you, Patrick. When gays and lesbians are trying to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw Christianity or to strip away their marriage rights or when gay town clerks are asking for special exemptions to deny issuing marriage licenses to Christians, then we'll talk. Until then, you're claims are baseless. My offer to dissect your anti-gay rant which essentially paints gays and lesbians as disease ridden sociopaths still stands if you'd like to provide an email address.

November 16, 2011

Greg B. said:

... * you And I hate to burst your bubble, Patrick. But gays and lesbians aren't looking for your approval or endorsement. In other words, it's not about you. They're just demanding that agents of the government like Belforti obey the law and don't try to discriminate against them and violate their civil rights under the guise of "religious freedom".

November 16, 2011

Not convinced said:

To Greg B. Transvestites are not allowed to be discriminated against in the hiring process. Employers may be penalized if they don't hire one, and a dress code requiring a male to wear pants and a female to wear dresses would not likely be legally defensible. Why is it OK to penalize the Christian at work just because it is in the public sphere, if the Christian's beliefs are not likely to interfere with the job getting done? Also, gays do want special treatment in the public sphere. Take schools: Anyone who says something negative about homosexuality will likely be kicked out of school for "bullying," yet gays find it perfectly acceptable for Christianity to be disparaged in schools. Somehow that is not "bullying," though it is the same behavior.

November 16, 2011

Not convinced said:

one more thought I may be wrong, but didn't the woman in this case have her job before the law changed? Should she face the loss of her job because the law changed? How is that morally defensible?

November 16, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

We will have our day in court. This is just going around in circles, Greg. You and I will never see eye-to-eye if you think racism and moral opposition to sodomy are the same thing. In a free society though, we wouldn't have to agree 100% in order to coexist. It's because a few hard-liners are trying to bully Christians in public office into endorsing their life-style that we even get conflicts like this. I see nothing wrong with Rose delegating the signing of ALL marriage licenses to a deputy so she doesn't have to put her name on what she considers a pervesion of the word "marriage." You believe that is unacceptable and she should be removed from her position. I guess we will have to see. Rose will have her day in court. http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org

November 16, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

As Greg shows, "Gay Marriage" is a threat to Religious Liberty http://www.marriageuniqueforar...ideo/[url] Marriage, the lifelong and exclusive union of one man and one woman, is a distinct good in itself, and deserves to be protected. At the same time, because marriage and the family are the foundation of society, proposals to “extend” and ultimately “redefine” marriage to include two persons of the same sex threaten not only to empty marriage of its meaning, but also to collapse other fundamental pillars of society. One of those pillars is religious liberty. Religious liberty is “the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person” (CA, no. 47). It entails not only the freedom to worship in private, but also the freedom to follow the tenets of one’s faith in the public sphere. The threat to religious liberty is not (as is commonly assumed) that clergy would be forced to officiate at “weddings” of two persons of the same sex. Instead, the threats are much subtler. The law will not tolerate people and organizations acting against what are commonly held to be democratic values. If opposing same-sex “marriage” is held to be equivalent to the opposition to inter-racial marriage common generations ago, then those who hold this view will be regarded, and treated, as racial bigots. While holding these views would not be against the law per se, the law – and society in general – has ways of punishing, stigmatizing and marginalizing such people, e.g., denying them professional licenses (as therapists, for operating a radio or television station, running a school, etc.), denying tax-exempt status to non-profit organizations, denial of the right to conscientious objection, and so on. The truth about marriage is an integral aspect of Jesus’ teaching. But contemporary laws that “redefine” marriage to include two persons of the same sex threaten to stifle the Church’s ability to teach publicly about and witness to the uniqueness of marriage as a lifelong bond between one man and one woman. Numerous incidents have already occurred where Christians’ fidelity to the truth about marriage has been condemned as “bigoted” or “hate speech,” with the consequence of professionals being sued (and losing), churches having their tax-exemption revoked, and even ordained ministers being denied the right to teach publicly their religion’s beliefs in this matter. Marriage must be protected for its own sake, and not just for the sake of preserving religious liberty. However, the consequences of changing the legal definition of marriage are vast, and threaten to encroach upon the Church’s ability to witness to Christ in the public square. This is why the relationship between marriage and religious liberty is a crucial topic needing close attention.

November 16, 2011

Greg B. said:

As Patrick has proven.... ...that the phrase "religious liberty" is being used by bigots as a euphemism to describe their desire to have special rights that allow them to discriminate without consequence. Having had that privilege for centuries, they're now stomping their feet and crying victim because they see it coming to an end.

November 16, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

So it's about revenge? The radical redefining of words did not stop with marriage. Now someone who adheres faithfully to Church doctrine is a "bigot" and to live a life in line with the faith is "discrimination." Greg is accurate about the intentions of the forces behind "gay marriage." They seek to use the power of government to exact revenge on Christian for perceived injustices of the past. That is exactly why Christians need to be as vigilant as ever about this growing threat to our religious liberties. They're not going to stop with Rose Marie. She's just the beginning.

November 16, 2011

Greg B. said:

Revenge? Social justice is revenge? I guess you're free to redefine terms as you see fit. But if I use your definition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was revenge on racists. You can characterize it that way if you want, but you're still on the wrong side of history. Bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ["The Catechism describes homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered"]; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group ["Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies"] with hatred and intolerance ["marriage to include two persons of the same sex threaten not only to empty marriage of its meaning, but also to collapse other fundamental pillars of society"]. If the shoe fits...

November 16, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Who is exhibiting hatred and intolerance? Straight from the Cathechism: "Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies . . . must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." If only homosexuals activists showed the same kind of compassion and respect for Christians who believe sodomy is a sin. Instead we get the kind of rage-fueled tirades like Greg's where we are are condemned as hopeless "bigots" who must be taught the error of our ways. It's obvious that the ones who are constantly calling Priests and Nuns "bigots" and lumping the Catholic Church in with the KKK are the ones who are truly seething with "hatred and intolerance."

November 17, 2011

Greg B. said:

Blind Criticizing people out on their intolerance and hate (no matter what book they use to justify it) is not in itself and act of intolerance and hate. I don't hate Catholics - my entire family is Catholic as are my in-laws. I was raised Catholic. I saw about 75 of my Catholic family members a couple months back when we gathered to celebrate the wedding of my lesbian cousin. I don't consider them bigots. Maybe they're just independent thinkers - shocking, isn't it? But I literally laughed out loud when I read your attempt to back up the "respect, compassion, sensitivity" claim with "sodomy is a sin" in the following paragraph. Seriously? Are you so blinded by your adherence to ancient mythology that you can't even see the irony of your own words? You never did address the prohibitions on race-mixing found in the Bible. Should I assume you hold the same blind allegiance to those or do you only believe in the parts of the Bible that Catholicism has told you are relevant?

November 17, 2011

Jennifer said:

... I found the comparison to the Hindu person interesting... Maybe because it was such a flawed comparison. The Hindu person of course should not be able to tell everyone else that they couldn't put meat in the fridge. But what if the janitor were Hindu and did not want to clean out the fridge with everyone else's meat in it? Should he/she be fired? Well.... Maybe, if that meant that the fridge NEVER got cleaned, but couldn't that person have the night janitor do it instead? Sure, that means that the fridge wouldn't get cleaned right away and it might annoy someone that they had to wait for the night janitor to clean it, but if that is how they delegated duties, I don't see a big issue here. The night janitor cleans the fridge, meat or no meat, end of story. Isn't that more similar to Rose Marie's situation? She doesn't want to sign ANY marriage licenses anymore, so she has the deputy do it, whether it's for heterosexual, homosexual, Christian, non-Christian marriages. Everyone has to wait, not just gays. Who cares why she delegated the duties? I believe delegation is within the powers of her job, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. If the gay couple were refused a license, then yes, that would be a problem that should be rectified. They were just asked to follow the same procedure that everyone else now follows, and they would have gotten their license in the same amount of time as anyone else. I'm kind of getting the feeling that someone in the town of Ledyard heard about this delegation of duties and Rose's motivation for it and set her up with this lesbian couple coming in, just to make a big stink over it so that everyone who opposes gay marriage can be called a bigot. And just for the record, when I heard that gay marriage was legalized in NYS (where I live), I thought "How nice, I'm happy for gay people," even though I am Catholic and do not personally approve of gay marriage. Live and let live. I am, however, getting very nervous about all of this anti-Christian vitriol that is being flung at anyone who politely declines to be a party to something they don't believe in. I just read about a bakery somewhere getting sued for not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding. If people in other states are hearing all of this, they might be more reluctant to allow a gay marriage law to pass in their own states. I'm just saying, if you're trying to get more universal acceptance of gay marriage, maybe tone down the hatred a little. I was all for gay people getting married until this kind of stuff started happening.....

November 17, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

Jennifer is 100% right about Greg's anti-Christian vitriol Hard-liners like Greg are going to set back relations between homosexuals and the rest of society if they continue their hate parade. And, Greg, I did completely refute your race-to-sodomy comparison at the start but you refused to accept it. But, unlike you, I think it's fine for people to have different opinions. You think I'm a fool for my adherence to "ancient mythology." You're entitled to your opinion. Too bad you don't feel people like me and Rose are entitled to ours.

November 17, 2011

David in Houston said:

@ Jennifer You responded to the Hindu part of my question. But you didn't actually answer why she shouldn't be able to insist that her Hindu beliefs (about meat) be respected by her fellow employees. How do employees differ from the general public? If Rose Marie were Hindu, wouldn't she expect everyone to kowtow to her religious beliefs, just like if she were a Christian? You also didn't answer the most relevant question that I posted, "Why does Rose Marie think she has the right to force everyone else in society to bend to her personal, chosen beliefs?"

November 17, 2011

Greg B. said:

Hate parade? When gays and lesbians... - spend millions to ban Christians from marrying or serving in the military - send Christians to emergency rooms and morgues with violent physical attacks - raise kids who harass and bully their Christan classmates to the point of suicide ...then your claims that the hate comes from the LGBT community will have merit. Until then... So you're going to deny being motivated by bigotry one minute and try to diminish the dignity of LGBT people with the word "sodomy" the next? On my comparision - race and sexual orientation are both unique aspects of human existence - there's no perfect analogy for either. There is much discrimination based on race and on sexual orientation - often by the same people so it's a completely valid comparison. Are you really going to try and discredit comparisons between race and sexual orientation while comparing sexual orientation to people who want to marry their sibling? The fact is that from corporate policies to state anti-discrimination laws, sexual orientation sits right there alongside race. Society has largely come to agreement that sexual orientation is a class. So if you want to prove that your comparison is credible and not complete nonsense, point me in the direction of a law that identifies people in relationships with their siblings as a protected class. Until then... But that wasn't really point. I never said race and orientation were "the same thing", I said that there are people who have deeply held religious/moral convictions about race mixing. They can even support them with the Bible, not that religious freedom in the U.S. only applies to Bible-based Christian views. You may not subscribe to prohibitions on race mixing but it's not about Patrick's religious views, it's about which actions are protected by religious freedom and must be accommodated by the gov't. If we're debating whether a public employee has the right to deny a marriage license to a legally qualified couple because the employee has religious opposition to their relationship, then it's not only fair, but it's imperative that we explore the question as it relates to other deeply held views on the morality of a particular couple seeking to marry. It's hard to accept that Belforti's cause and your defense of her is about religious liberty when you are unwilling to apply your rationale to any views other than anti-gay ones. You're demanding that the government effectively take a position on, and give preference to, one person's religious view over another. Unless you're willing to argue that a clerk who has moral opposition to interracial marriage or premarital sex has the right to refuse to serve a black/white or pregnant couple, then you're simply proving my point that this is not about religious liberty, it's about anti-gay prejudice.

November 17, 2011

Jennifer said:

Response to David... I don't believe that our hypothetical Hindu friend should be able to insist that everyone - other employees or the public - respect her. My point was that if she delegated part of her job and it was still getting done... well, the job was getting done. No one, not Catholics, Christians, Hindus, men, women, gays, etc, can insist that their views be completely respected. That's just life. To answer your last question, I don't know why Rose Marie thinks anything, just as you don't really know what she thinks. I don't really think, though, that her actions suggest that she wants to force anyone to bend to her beliefs. She's not trying to prevent anyone from getting married in Ledyard, NY. If she were trying to deny gays a license or treating gays differently, I would say she is wrong. The law says gays can get married in NY whether people like it or not, and so they shall. I certainly wouldn't stand in their way, and I don't believe Rose is either. She just said, ok, that's the law now, but I don't want to sign it myself, so the deputy will just handle marriage licenses now. Is she prejudiced against gays? I don't know her, so I can't say. But WHO CARES? It's not illegal to have predjudiced thoughts or harbor hatred in your soul or to just be jerk (and I am sure there are tons of people, including town hall employees in every state, that fit that description). They changed the way licences are handled in that town for everyone, so that's just the way it is. If I go there to get a license, I'll be told the same thing as the lesbian couple. If the reason behind that procedure were because someone didn't think Catholics should be allowed to get married, I would just think that person was an idiot, but take my license and move on with my life. No lawsuit necessary.

November 17, 2011

Patrick Krey said:

You're just going around in circles, Greg. How is Rose forcing people to bend to her will? How am I forcing you to bend to my will? I have no right to force Catholic views on you than you do to force your "LGBT" ones on me. As Jennifer said, live and let live. Would you also support suing this poor woman who makes cakes out of her home? (BTW, I'm moving this debate over there.) http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/9821-iowa-baker-targeted-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbian-couple I've said it before and I'll say it again. This battle is only just beginning. The "LGBT" crowd is not going to stop with Rose.

November 17, 2011