Except This
It’s as ridiculous as it is sad when a government compels its citizens to act in a manner that contradicts their consciences. But forcing New Yorkers to accept with new boundaries of matrimony wasn’t enough for liberals who keep forgetting to be broad-minded. They had to be sloppy, too.
In addition to transforming matrimony on a whim, they forgot to care about honorable dissenters. As a result of Albany’s typically and totally well-thought-out bill allowing anyone to marry anyone else, state workers responsible for signing marriage certificates are allowed to maintain their jobs or religious convictions, but not both:
A town clerk in a rural upstate New York community has submitted her resignation, citing her religious opposition to gay marriage.
Who is this H8ful H0m0ph0b3 who thinks that marriage was fine before the progressive reinvention? What a surprise: she goes to church. How rotten can you get?
Laura Fotusky submitted a letter of resignation to the town board in Barker on Monday, saying her religious beliefs prevent her from signing a marriage certificate for a homosexual couple, as she’d be required to do as a municipal clerk.
Count another person out of work in New York State, although she is jobless for a novel reason involving personal integrity instead of a traditional one involving a pathetic economy. What does the man who hasn’t exercised his right to marry the Kwanzaa cake’s inventor think about Ms. Fotusky’s unemployment?
Gov. Andrew Cuomo said elected officials must abide by the rules of the state.
“The law is the law,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday. “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose.”
That’s true even when a state unilaterally redefines a word in the name of altering a custom that has worked for as long as there have been societies. One shouldn’t expect much from a government that counts reducing the rate of increase for already-ridiculous property taxes as an accomplishment.
Not quite astonishingly, the same politicians who have dedicated their careers to making life in New York exasperating forgot to consider the rights of people who have stronger convictions than, say, Mark Grisanti:
There was no protection provided in the legislation for Town Clerks who are unable to sign these marriage licenses due to personal religious convictions, even though our US Constitution supports freedom of religion.
The site that printed her letter also points out that photographers and caterers face lawsuits if they dare not cater double-groom ceremonies. Don’t forget who’s imposing views upon whom.
That’s not even to mention that couples in traditional marriages don’t have any recourse for how the term has been diluted. Politicians are more concerned with legislating permissiveness. It’s of course so homophobic to maintain that matrimony should be kept the way it always has been, as if gays were being denied the right to love based on their inability to be a wedding’s primary participants.
As for now, we’ll have to wait and see if a Muslim clerk refuses to grant a gay marriage license. The intolerant left won’t know which side to claim is the victim of injustice. It would bring some relief knowing that they would be spending their hours trying to reach the end of the Möbius strip of spurious affliction.
Cross-posted at http://conservativecommune.com
The Buffalo Bean 
“That’s true even when a state unilaterally redefines a word in the name of altering a custom that has worked for as long as there have been societies.”
Wrong.
Unless you want to return to treating women as property, which is how marriage originally worked. Or with multiple wives, as in the Bible.
It’s very simple. I, an atheist, can get married to my atheist girlfriend legally anywhere in the US. Thus, ‘religious objections’ don’t matter. Whether Christians or Muslims or Jews are making them.
Unfortunately, NAS, you seem to have proven the opposition. Whether cultures have viewed women as property or allowed multiple wives, the norm has always been between a man and a woman (or women, I suppose.) Even in the examples of perversion that you are able to cite, each gender is represented.
And to put a finer point on it, even in cases of multiple wives, the man involved was marrying each woman individually. So while he may be involved in more than one marriage, the women involved were not. They were not married to each other and they were not free to marry other men.
For NYS, this entire issue is a political football with significant cultural ramifications, and it’s been forced down the throats of the public without any analysis or thought of the future.
“and it’s been forced down the throats of the public”
Yes, I can see how the heterosexuals are forced to…well…do absolutely nothing.
Wait a minute, your point is completely wrong.
@NAS It’s tough to tell if you’re looking for a reasoned debate or just to be a contrarian, since “your point is completely wrong” isn’t exactly a logical refutation.
Regardless, I’ll clue you in on a list of things that heterosexuals interested in protecting societal traditions are forced to do as a result of this legislation.
– sign marriage licenses, evidently without the protection of a conscientious objector status.
– contend with public education entities that will be required to teach our children the “new normal”
– provide floral services, banquet services, limo services, etc. without the protection of a conscientious objector status, risking lawsuits and loss of our businesses if we refuse service
– we get the privilege of enduring the labels of bigot and homophobe for no reason other than asserting historically accurate fact
This is just the beginning; any cultural shift affects us all in ways that cannot be predicted. (For example, the CA legislature just passed a requirement for inclusion of a “gay history” unit in their social studies courses.) Yet no one has bothered to study the effects of this, simply decreed that it must be.
It seems a real stretch to call this an “economic” post… (that’s where I found it). Your post does bring up valid points about the duties and responsibilities of town officials responsible for carrying out the law though.
Still.. if same-sex marraige is the law, then someone has got to sign the document. To deny legal recognition now would invite civil suits against towns and town clerks. Best to either hire / elect clerks capable of carrying out their duties or face the inevitable cost of litigation.
Money quote:
“When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose.”
Evidently the same is not true of, say, Catholic doctrine.
“– sign marriage licenses, evidently without the protection of a conscientious objector status.”
It’s the law. If you refuse to obey the law in your job, then you are let go. Easy as that.
“contend with public education entities that will be required to teach our children the “new normal””
Schools will teach that gay people exist, are not monsters, and can now get married if they want to. Do you think hiding that information will somehow keep the gay off the children?
“provide floral services, banquet services, limo services, etc. without the protection of a conscientious objector status, risking lawsuits and loss of our businesses if we refuse service”
You can’t refuse services based on what a person is. Not if they’re an atheist, black or gay. Sorry, but I don’t feel bad about that.
“we get the privilege of enduring the labels of bigot and homophobe for no reason other than asserting historically accurate fact”
If tradition is more important to you than happiness and equality, I feel no pity for your way of thinking.