Rose Marie may claim to be persecuted, but is it possible that by refusing to administer a same-sex marriage certificate, she would be persecuting others?
Whether or not you agree with same-sex marriage, as a civil servant you are bound to carry out your duties according to the law of the state, in this case New York.
The state of New York did not enact this law as a personal attack on you or anybody. And if you are unwilling to carry out your duty, I'm sure someone else will.
It is situations like this, where people let their religious beliefs effect their job decisions.. It is sad. Keep God out of it, and do your job.. this is why we have all these issues in our country, and how it is ran.. =/
you have no right to use your religion to decide your job. job description does not state use your own judgement, or a third party to decide whayt you do and don't do.
Ms Belforti when you went to obtain a legal civil marriage did the town clerk refuse to administer the state civil marriage law and refuse your civil marriage? Did the citizens of New York get to vote on whether you could get a civil marriage? LGBT New Yorkers are a small minority therefore can't vote their own equality and freedom into law. Do LGBT New Yorkers get to vote on whether you can have your civil marriage? If not, why not? Basically that's the other side of the coin you are playing
"I love helping people' says Rose - such a giving, kind spirited woman. (Well, unless of course you are a gay person - then Rose apparently thinks you can just go rot in hell.) And because Rose is a Christian she feels entitled to make up her own set of rules and pick and choose which parts of the job she was hired to to she will or will not do. Neat!
Rose, you poor-poor girl, you have to do your job the way your employer says to do it, WAHHHHHHHHHHH. I believe 100% of all employee's have to do the job the way the employer tells them to do their job. It's pretty simple, if you don't want to do the job the way your employer says to do the job, then make room for someone who will. You all play the little victim.
@RCSVirginia YES!!! Yes yes and re-yes. It's such a wonderful, wonderful video. Very touching and moving. Have you also seen the Zach Wahl video of his testimony in Iowa? He was raised by 2 moms and is an increadibly articulat and intelligent young man. It'll also cleanse you of NOM's filth, for sure! :-)
Thanks. Yes, I have seen Zach Wahls. He is a great example of a young man raised by a gay family. In fact, I have three videos featuring him in my "Common Sense" playlist. After all, everything he has to say in then is good, old-fashioned common sense.
@RCSVirginia Yes, indeed it is heartwarming to see young people standing up for love and tolerance, and rejecting hate and bigotry. We need more of those in our world, they are such an inspiration! :-)
And seeing your channel I realize that Minxcomix is also anti-choice. Intolerant and hateful towards LGBT and disrespectful of women. Yeah. Those usually go hand in hand.
@CountessGeschwitz You are correct in stating that I am anti-choice when it comes to giving others the legal right to decapitate a human being. I do not discriminate against the unborn human being and say that another human being simply for the fact that they are their mother, has a right to take away their life. I believe that all are created equal with the right to life. I do not support age discrimination.
@Minxcomix Funny how that works, eh? Funny how the life of the woman involved is always overlooked in such matters. But abortions aren't going anywhere, despite anti-choicers lying and shamefully using scare tactics to get their way. Women know too well that losing this right would involve.
@CountessGeschwitz I could respond to this abortion matter very easily and logically. But since this video is not about abortion it would be playing into your intent to distract from the point
@Minxcomix I wasn't really trying to be distractive. I'm just pointing out that fundamentalists like yourself are usually anti everything that's not white, christian, middle-class, straight, and preferably male. You being anti-gay and anti-women is not surprising.
@CountessGeschwitz I am not anti-gay, nor am I anti-woman. And just because you accuse me of being so does not make it so. Sticks and stones and all that. Ready to stay on topic yet?
@Minxcomix So what IS the topic? You trying to convince me that it's ok to ban loving, committed couples from marrying? To convince me that civil rights are put up to discussion? I don't "debate" civil rights. I stand up for them.
"Your sense of a family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state 'Congratulations! You're married!' No. The sense of family comes from the committment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones, it comes from the love that binds us, THAT'S what's make a family." Zach Wahl, from Iowa, raised by 2 moms, and what it means for his family to be able to marry.
@CountessGeschwitz Mr. Wahl may be o.k. with being willfully deprived a father, but he has no right to claim that for all children. Every child has a right to a father and a mother, innumerable studies prove that children raised in households with both their father and mother present and married to each other do far better then single parent households. The best a same sex couple can offer a child is a single parent household. Two women together willfully deprives a child their right to a father
@Minxcomix Children deserve a loving, stable environment. Where are your studies showing that children suffer in same-sex families? You're trying to justify discrimination but however you present it, however you try to justify it, people realize more and more the harm that is done to gays and lesbians by denying them this basic civil right.
@CountessGeschwitz Keyword search "study, children, mother, father" and you will find numerous ones that show that mothers are not inconsequential, nor are fathers. You will find studies that show that children do best when their parents are married to each other. Show me any study which states that same sex partners are comparable to *married biological (or original adoptive) mothers and fathers*. The best you will find will show comparable to a single parent.
You're a public employee! If you can't apply the laws of the state of New York to all people/couples you serve equally, then you shouldn't be in that job. Stop calling yourself a victim cause those of us with brains and education see right through your bulls%&*
@wonkaquarius She is not discriminating against people, she is refusing to participate in an action which violates her religious beliefs. If a gay man came in and filed for a marriage license 2 years ago, she would've issued it. If a gay man comes in today and files for a marriage license with a woman, she will issue it. It is not the person that is being discriminated against, it is the practice and forcing her to support it in any way violates her religious belief.
@Minxcomix. She is discriminating against gay couples. New York law allows both opposite sex and same-sex couples to marry. Telling a gay couple in her office that she won't sign a license for them but choosing to sign one for a straight couple is discrimination under the law. If her religious beliefs are so strong that she can't follow NY law, then she shouldn't be in that job. She has every right to deny a marriage license to a gay couple that enters her church, but not a state office.
@Minxcomix Why would 2 straight men marry? If your response is "to denigrate the institution of marriage," that was happening before same sex marriage was legal. As a public employee, you are obligated to treat all citizens you serve equally under the law. It is discrimination for the state (represented by a state employee) to deny a marriage license to 2 gay people who qualify under NY law. As a state employee, Ms. Belforti's religious beliefs do not give her the right to disobey NY law.
@wonkaquarius "As a public employee, you are obligated to treat all citizens you serve equally under the law." Precisely. Imagine the zoo if employees were allowed to interpret the law as they see fit, do as they please, and deny other citizens their civil rights simply because they feel like it... Rose Marie Belforti must either follow the law of find another job.
@CountessGeschwitz In the state that I live in everyone with same sex attraction can marry just as well as anyone who hasn't same sex attraction. No discrimination, the same rules apply for all. Where is the inequality? Whereas in NY where marriage has been changed to now instead be about two people who want to make a public lifetime commitment to each other discriminates against those too closely related or who are already married to someone else. *That's* discrimination!
@Minxcomix The rule has been changed in New York to allow two people who are in love to marry, regardless of their gender! As a lesbian woman I will not marry a man I do not love. I will marry a woman that I love and with whom I will remain committed. You know, your argument is like saying "oh black people had the same rights to marry, just not a white person." It's a lousy argument because at the end of the day it STILL denies citizens their civil rights.
@CountessGesc Society has for all time supported marriage because marriage supports society thru procreation and the best environment to raise children in with their fundamental right to both their father and mother being met. At times there was discrimination against interacial marriage because of ignorance which claimed that children from interracial marriage suffered. However it is not ignorance that claims that two women cannot provide children with a father. Why should society support you?
@Minxcomix The best environment to raise a child might just be 2 moms or 2 dads in some cases. It's ridiculous and discriminatory to claim gays and lesbians cannot raise children. We've been doing so for centuries and nothing will change to that fact. Children deserve to see their moms and dads married. And gays and lesbians who cannot marry suffer just like interracial couples suffered in the 1960s. It's blatant, ugly discrimination all over again.
@CountessGeschwitz Who is stating that those with same sex attraction cannot raise children? You are ignoring the fact that only in marriage of man/woman can children be procreated *and* raised by both their mother and father, and this is the best environment for a child and is *why* society has supported marriage. Why should society support relationships which willfully denies a child a parent and has made the priority in the family about the desires of the adults over the needs of the child?
@Minxcomix First off, it's not an "attraction": it's love. Whether between 2 men, 2 women, a man and a woman, it's all the same. Second, why should society NOT support same- sex relationships? Why should the state deny its citizens their civil rights? Who says the needs of the child are disregarded? I plan to have kids one day, with my FEMALE partner. Yes, we'll be a lesbian couple raising kids. And we'll provide a wonderful environment for that child.
@Minxcomix I mean, you really have no basis here. Marriage is not based on procreation. Elderly couples, infertile couples, couples who do not want kids are allowed to marry. There's nothing that says "must have kids before X number of years or the marriage becomes null and void" and you know this. What is happening here is that you are making a lame attempt at justifying discrimination against LGBT individuals. THAT's what's happening, and I'll call you on it.
@Minxcomix And why should society NOT support me? My parents support me. My friends support me. YOU don't get to chose who will get to wed, and who will not. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't go to one, all I care. But depriving taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of civil rights is wrong, and will always be wrong.
@CountessGeschwitz Marriage is supported by society because only in marriage are the future generation of said society procreated *and* are provided with their fundamental right to both a mother and a father present in a committed, stable relationship. Society should *not* support your relationship in like because it is the nature of your *relationship* to be infertile and because it denies any children brought into your relationship their fundamental right to a father
@Minxcomix Like I said, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It has everything to do with love, committment, raising kids, which both straight and gay couples already experience and do.
@Minxcomix And no one forces you to support gay marriage. But what you are asking everyone here is to tolerate your intolerance. You are imposing your bigoted views on everyone out there, on my friends, my family, my children (one day), my partner, you are passing judgments on our lives, our relationships, and I find this despicable. Not to mention that I really don't see why the state should deny citizens their civil rights unless they have a good reason to do so.
@CountessGeschwitz "Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't go to one, all I care." You said it! Whatever happened to live and let live? I would respect those who don't favor same-sex marriage if they simply sat back and didn't get all huffy about individuals making personal choices to marry the person they love and get the legal benefits, whether opposite-sex or same-sex. And they blame us for starting this "culture war."
@wonkaquarius Your post here shows ignorance or denial of the reason why society supports marriage. It is incorrect to hold that marriage is simply about two people who love each other and wish to commit their lives together. This denies that marriage is also about family, procreating and raising the next generation.
@CountessGeschwitz I did not state that marriage was about procreation, only that it is why society supports marriage civilly. You can choose to participate in a unitive ceremony with anyone you want and personally call it a marriage, that has always been your right. But this is not what is being sought, what is being sought is a requirement for all others to also call it marriage, and for society to support it even tho it is impossible for such unions to support society in an equal manner
@Minxcomix And there's no reason why EVERYONE should think your way. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't go to one. Don't impose your morality on others, especially since christianity is not exactly a shining example when it comes to morality, to say the least. I thankfully live where my rights are not denied, and my marriage would in no way be less of one than yours, or that of any straight couple.
@CountessGeschwitz Have a ceremony and call it a marriage all you want, keep it in your household, it's none of my business or concern. It becomes other's business and concern however when you want to change it for everyone else, forcing *your* ideals down everyone else's throat, and then requiring society to support you equally as other married couples when it is impossible for you to provide to society equally by your own willful choice
@Minxcomix And YOU want to impose YOUR religious views on everyone. Don't like gay marriage? Don't go to one. The fact that the state would allow me to marry my partner has ZERO effect on YOUR life.
@CountessGeschwitz Again, my points presented have nothing to do with religion. If you keep bringing it up, it only proves how weak yours are in countering my non religious points.
@Minxcomix Fine. Let's keep religion out of this, as it should be given that we live in a secular society. So. What's your argument for banning loving, committed same-sex couples to marry? Why should YOU decide for ALL of us, who may not share your views? I mean, get real. You are calling us intolerant while YOU impose YOUR way of seeing things on everyone?
@Countess Again, society supports marriage because only in marriage can the next generation be raised with their fundamental right to both theirparents in a committed stable environment which countless studies show that which we've known throughout time that this is the best environment in which to raise children. Same sex unions are incapable of this. Have a ceremony, call yourself married, but since you cannot support society in the same manner it is not right to require society to support you
@Minxcomix Ok, how many times must I repeat this? Marriage is not based on procreation. Gay couples have kids and those kids deserve to be raised in a stable, married family. Same-sex unions are just as capable of raising kids and leading them through adulthood so they become productive individuals in the society they live in. There's no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
@CountessGeschwitz Marriage may/may not be based on procreation, that is beside the point. The point is that (and excuse the caps, but you seem to keep missing this) THE REASON WHY SOCIETY SUPPORTS MARRIAGE IS BASED ON PROCREATION *AND* THE RAISING OF CHILDREN WITH BOTH A FATHER AND MOTHER.
Again, please excuse the caps, but you keep missing *Why society supports*. Like I stated, have a ceremony, call yourself married, but don't expect society to support you when you don't support society
@Minxcomix And in what ways are gay couples not capable of raising kids, just like straight couples are? In what ways do kids raised in committed, loving, stable gay families suffer? No studies have shown this. You are making a claim based on a non-existent harm done to children raised by same-sex parents. It's despicable.
@Minxcomix So bottom line is: you have to support your assertion that gay couples are less worthy than straight couples. You can't. And so you're struggling to justify intolerance.
@Minxcomix At the end of the day, when it comes to the question: "Why should we ban gay marriage" you have no logical, rational answer to offer. You cannot make ANY case that's not based on religion. And given that we live in a secular world you must base your case on facts and logic, not religion and discrimination (funny how both so often go hand in hand...).
@Minxcomix WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT MARRIAGE IS ABOUTt? Your definition of marriage as explained above may work for you and many others, but you do not have a monopoly on what marriage is. What about a post-menopausal woman choosing to marry even though she can't reproduce? Or a young couple who choose not to have children but want to share their lives with one another? Or two senior citizens who just want companionship during their golden years. Define marriage for yourself!
@wonkaquarius Her definition of marriage is essentially a religious one. Which is fine. But it belongs in churches. Not at the state/federal level. Church and state are kept separate, for good reasons. We all know what happens when they're not.
@wonkaquarius Again, have a ceremony and call your union a marriage all you want, keep it in your household, in your social circle, whatever. But to *require* others to call your relationship a marriage is forcing your alteration of marriage down everyone else's throat. The only reason why my marriage is supported by society is because it is capable of providing the next generation of said society with the best environment to grow up in, a mother *and* a father. Same sex unions are incapable
@Minxcomix Again, YOU are forcing your homophobia and intolerance on everyone else. YOU want us to keep quiet, to go back to the closet. Not gonna happen. WHY should the state not recognize gay marriage? What is your compelling argument for that?
@CountessGeschwitz How is my stating the fact that the reason society supports marriage is because only thru marriage is the next generation procreated *and* given the best possible environment to be raised in homophobic or intolerant or forcing anyone to deny their tendencies?
And again, the reason why states should not support same sex unions as marriage is because they do not equally support society as marriage does. The very nature of such unions is infertile and denies children a parent.
@Minxcomix Again we're talking in circles, and this argument is bogus and I've explained why. Marriage has nothing to do with how many little cute babies a couple produces. You and I know this.
@Minxcomix And how do same-sex marriage not support society the way straight marriage do? I'm sorry but this is rubbish and a lame attempt at justifying intolerance and discrimination. Same-sex marriages are just as worthy as straight ones are.
@CountessGeschwitz Same sex unions are infertile by their very nature it is unable to procreate and provide society with the next generation which will support said society. It is also unable to provide any children brought into the relationship with their fundamental right to both a mother and a father. In fact it is a willful denial of a parent to any children and thusly makes priority in such a family structure the desires and preferences of the adults over the needs of any children
@Minxcomix There are many kinds of families. A father who is part of the family unit, part of the childrearing process of course is consequential in that child's life. But 2 women can perfecly raise kids, and as a lesbian I would make sure for my child to have male models in his/her life.
@CountessGeschwitz But your union willfully prohibits any hope for a child to be raised in the same household as their father. Numerous studies prove that children do best raised in the same household as both their biological or adoptive parents being married to each other. Your same sex union is incapable of this and at best can only be compared to a single parent raised child
@Minxcomix "Numerous studies prove that children do best raised in the same household as both their biological or adoptive parents being married to each other." Which is why children in same-sex families deserve to have their parents married.
@Minxcomix And yes, some "genitors" are inconsequential to children. Sperm donors for instance. Should we ban this too? Funny how that is never discussed. Nope. Somehow it's only gay couples that are the targets of homophobic attacks. Again, show me why we should deny citizens their civil rights. You havn't yet.
@CountessGeschwitz Actually sperm donation *is* often discussed. It has created it's own can of sperms ;-) But that's another hot topic altogether. No one is crying out for their right to marry the sperm donor of their children.
Countess, I have to turn in. Thank you for the interaction and discussion. I wish you well. G'nite
@Minxcomix Good night to you too! And it's been "interesting" to interact with you. I just hope that if you truly believe in God and follow his doctrine, that he will open your heart and help you to stop discriminating against LGBT individuals. And for the record, I WILL have desire for my partner when I find her because I have no intention of entering sham relationships with a man just to please individuals like you. As far as I'm concerned, no desire = no partner either.
@Minxcomix Anyways, it is late and I am going to bed. I could continue "arguing" with you but you would not bring anything more to the table than the old homophobic and intolerant arguments. But I'm confident that one day LGBT people won't have to tolerate your intolerance.
@Minxcomix And it's not a desire or a preference. I did not chose to be gay. When did you chose to become heterosexual? Homosexuality is not a choice. Homophobia is.
@CountessGesch Your desire is to be with a female. If it were not, you would not be a lesbian. Love is a choice. We choose to love others. Unadvisable as it may be, you have every right to get married anywhere in the U.S. You have chosen not to because it is your desire to be with a woman not a man, but no one has denied you the right to marry and you could chose to do so. The fact that you would not be sexually attracted to your husband would make it difficult, but you would be no less married
@Minxcomix And no, I will not marry a man. That would NOT be honest to me or to the man, given that I do not love men. But that's the great irony. I could simply marry any dude I've just met on the street, which to you would be absolutely acceptable, but for me to marry the woman of my life that is not ok. I fail to see any sort of logic here. Marriage are based on love and committment. Not on the ability (or not) to make little babies.
@Minxcomix And no, you're absolutely crazy. I won't marry or force myself to sleep with a man I do not love and to whom I am not attracted, you can be sure of that. And why? Because I love women. Not men. It's not a "desire" or a "fancy" or an "attraction." It's love, and the desire to spend the rest of my life with someone of the same sex.
@wonkaquarius Sadly, for those fundamentalist christians like Minxcomix, only THEY have the right to impose their laws on others. Live and let live? They have long stopped abiding by that principle. And they are using ridiculous arguments in order to justify discrimination and denial of civil rights, directed towards other citizens. Live and let live? That's why I'm an atheist. I had enough about the christianist agenda and their control of people's lives.
@CountessGeschwitz I am not a fundamentalist, nor am I imposing any laws on anyone. It is actually the minority of those who are forcing down the throat of everyone else *their* concept of marriage who are imposing laws. Every state that has brought this matter up to vote has supported the real marriage. It is only the states in which a few people have made the decision for all which has introduced this discriminatory version. You can choose to marry ceremoniously anyone you want, I don't care
@Minxcomix Oh come on now. Assume yourself. You ARE a fundamentalist. And yes you are imposing your views, your morality on everyone else. You are asking everyone to tolerate your intolerance. Marriage at the state level is a secular institution. Your religion has nothing to do with it. And as it now stands, gay marriage bans hurt gay couples, deprive them of rights and of the possibility to express their committment to their family and friends. It's hateful.
@CountessGeschwitz Why are you bringing religion into this? I haven't, for I do not have any need to. Do you need me to be religious in order for you to be able to support your pov? That's a rather weak pov if so. If I do not need to bring religion into this, then you, as a identified atheist should not have the need either.
@Minxcomix Oh please. Your page is LITTERED with religious allusions to Jesus, God, the Bible, and what else. Ok, so be it. But it's important to point out the havoc that religions have created in this world, the discrimination, intolerance, killings, wars, that they have been responsible for. Morality? Is christianity the kind of morality I want to abide for? No thanks.
@CountessGeschwitz My page is yes. But my points here have not addressed it at all, nor do I have any need to. Do you discount anyone who has religious beliefs on everything? Rather intolerant of you Or maybe I was correct, you *do* need me to have religious beliefs in order to feel confident about your own pov on the matter at hand because you are not strong enough to counter logical arguments that I have presented.
@Minxcomix Religious beliefs surely can be brought in. But what arguments, religious or otherwise, have you brought to the table? I havn't seen anything remotely justifying the ban on gay marriage in anything you wrote so far. It's all the same old tried rhetoric. I've seen it all before. Lame attempts at justifying intolerance. At the end of the day it only makes YOU look intolerant and it's a win for us.
@Minxcomix Oh, BTW: you should look into the various configurations of marriage in the bible. Rape, incest, polygamy... all are perfectly justified there. Gross. Disgusting, actually. King Solomon can have 300 wives but when a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman, that's immoral? Give me a f%$? break.
@CountessGeschwitz True. The "Religious Reich" wants to impose biblical law on the entire country. Freedom of religion also means the choice not to practice religion if one chooses. Minxcomix and others like her will never understand that concept or "live and let live."
@wonkaquarius No, they really don't. They impose their morality on others, their views, they deny others their civil rights, and then they play the victim when we fight back. Well, guess what? LGBT people are not about to give up. Civil rights remain civil rights and their denial to any group in the population is despicable.
@wonkaquarius You too. None of my points involved religion. If you keep bringing religion into this argument it only shows that you are finding yourself unable to counter the points I have presented.
@wonkaquarius Please do not presuppose other's answers to your question.
Why would 2 "straight"s marry? Single parenthood. However more likely would be two "straight" women marrying tho, as women tend have more of a desire to have one stay at home with the kids while the other brings home benefits. If you think that "same sex" marriage laws will only lead to people with same sex attraction marrying, then you are naive.
@Minxcomix You're just full of NOM's repetitive talking points. There will always be a margin of society that "abuses marriage," but that existed long before the 2003 MA Court marriage equality decision. "Paper marriages" (marrying somebody to stay in the US) and getting married in a drunk stupor with a one-night stand in Vegas were going on well before 2003. Somehow those scenarios seem to be more of a threat to marriage than a loving, committed gay couple tying the knot in a civil ceremony.
@Minxcomix NOM is the group that produced and broadcasted the video above. I'm going to sign off for the night. I, a man, am going to make love to my husband as recognized by the state of Massachusetts.
To see a good example of a young man from the type of family that this self-pitying phony would like see deprived of its legitimate rights, take a look at the YouTube videos:
"Zach Wahls Speaks About Family" by Divulgate
"Zach Wahls Talks About His Inspiring Speech" by TheEllenShow
Ask yourself the question, "Who is more appealing, decent and honest? This creature or young Mr. Wahls?"
The institution of marriage is not only derived from religion but nature for the perpetration of the family. Other unions can exist but they do not have the right to call themselves marriage and thereby dilute the definition of the concept that existed from time immemorial (that included polygamous opposite sex unions). Discrimination and setting boundaries are necessary, otherwise the road is open for incest, three or more somes, child and just about marrying anything.
Boo, hoo, hoo! What a crybaby! She wants to discriminate against people in her job and the mean, bad state of New York will not let her do that. Isn't that just too damn bad!
@RCSVirginia Do you honestly believe that this woman would issue a marriage certificate for two "straight" men? There is no discrimination against people coming from this woman. However there now *is* discrimination coming from NY and other states that have made exceptions to marriage for the 'same sex' crowd. Now that they have made marriage solely about being with the person you love, there is discrimination against other groups like close relatives or those already married to others.
There is no constitutional right to discriminate against a certain group of people. Either you do your job for ALL citizens, or for no one. Could someone refuse to perform interracial marriages? No. Can someone refuse to perform gay marriage? No.
@CountessGeschwitz You claim this is discrimination against a group of people. So do you too believe then that this woman would issue a marriage certificate to two women if these women were "straight"? I think not. She is not discriminating against people, she is discriminating against a practice. If a lesbian came in and filed for a marriage certificate for a marriage between her and a man, this woman would issue it. She would not discriminate against the woman due to her sexual preference.
@Minxcomix The law allows 2 men or 2 women to get married. It doesn't matter if they identify as gay, bi, or heck, straight so your point is entirely moot. If she won't/can't follow the law and her job description she should be fired. Would we allow such "conscience excemptions" if she was against interracial marriage? She has the right to be a hater and a bigot. She has not the right to deny LGBT individuals their civil rights.
@CountessGeschwitz My point was in response to your statement "There is no constitutional right to discriminate against a certain group of people." Therefore it is not moot. The woman is not discriminating against a certain group of people as you claim.
"Our goal in Iowa is to play a constructive role in ensuring that the people of Iowa have the right to vote on the definition of marriage and we intend to see that happen," said Brian Brown, NOM's president.
"The leadership of the state Senate has blocked a vote on marriage even though voters in 31 other states have enjoyed that right. We supported Cindy Golding in the 18th Senate District special election because she was committed to allowing a vote on marriage. While we are disappointed that she didn't win this tight election, we have no doubt that we will eventually prevail. Ultimately, democracy will not be denied in Iowa and the people will get their vote."
Wasn't Rose Marie Belforti just re-elected to the office of Town Clerk in New York? Doesn't that mean it's safe to assume she ran for office *knowing* that the oath of office includes a pledge to uphold state laws and the state Constitution?
But she *also* wants to be exempt from the parts of her job she doesn't agree with? How in the *world* does NOM figure this to be persecution?
Washington, DC - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the decision of the US Senate Judiciary Committee which voted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and pledged a fierce fight on the Senate floor to stop San Francisco liberals from redefining marriage for the entire country.
@omiolo Oh boo hoo. So I guess NOM doesn't really like our Constitutional Republic then. Our duly elected officials are working to legislate what the majority (and a rapidly growing majority) of Americans now want (or agree is fitting), marriage equality for same-gender couples. Replacing the, already found by federal courts to be, unconstitutional DOMA with the Respect for Marriage Act which states the federal government is to recognize ALL marriages legally performed in any U.S. State.
First thing that occurs to me is that she parrots the NOM party line about same-sex marriage being subject to a referendum. See, Rosie, the way these things work in a *representative* democracy is that people vote for REPRESENTATIVES. We don't have rule by referendum, we have elected representatives who make our laws. For a government official, you sure don't know much.
And, too bad you choose to follow a religion that commands you to be a bigot, but that's your problem. Suck it up.
I am very supportive of gay rights, I think rose seems nice but i think she should not be working for the public if she cant fulfill the duties of that job!! Goodluck rose and sorry we strongly disagree with eachother
If people have rights they have rights, how can you argue for the rights of one and ignore the rights of another. That is just as hypocritcal and bigoted as you all are calling this lady. But it ok for you all to call names, but if someone uses derogitory names towards homosexuals that's hateful. Simple fix someone else could have done that so she could maintain her integrity, and belief it is wrong.Why is everyone so hostlie towards christians? Do they not have the same freedoms of choice?
@vincelam This woman is an individual and she can be characterized based on her own actions and beliefs. Calling someone out for what they've actually done or actually believe is not hateful, if they are based on astute and valid observations. We do not allow our elected officials and public servants to pick and choose which individuals they will service based on their individual sentiments. If we did, anyone could refuse to do parts of their job for any reason by claiming religious belief.
0:00 - 0:005 FIRST TIME TO RECEIVE PERSECUTION!? And what are you spreading across the board? TO PERSECUTE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, you typical bigot hypocrite. I'm glad you're old, you'll die soon anyway.
Oh cry for me, your recieving persecution? How about when every establishment you go to has people say "Wait, your Christian and dont like gays? lemme go get someone else Christian to help you" then you really would be whining you bigot
What a great comment! Would the bigoted, nasty piece-of-work ever be whining if no-one other than Christians would be assisting her in any government office.
@RCSVirginia oh i know they would. Every christian organization would be up in arms about it. And as they always spout, its a choice, so if you choose to be christian i choose not to help you
Suck it up lady, You are a civil servent when you take a job in the civil service you get benefits such as better pay and pension,........paid for by everyone including gay taxpayers. In turn you commit to serving fairly applying the rule of law regardless of your beliefs. If that is not acceptable to you go back to your goats !!!
I wonder what the stupid woman and NOM would be saying had they put it to the vote and the people had passed it into law. New Yorkers in general seem modern enough on this issue to not bother themselves with who each and other are marrying. Gay marriage affects no one but the two people who decide to partake in one. These mindless bigots need to get a life.
@kddan2 Actually we know what NOM would do IF 'the people voted' directly on the equal rights of their fellow citizens and it didn't go their way. I posted in their own forums at one point, and the NOM supporters agreed that if 'the people' voted in favor of marriage equality for same gender couples, then they would have no other choice but to amend the U.S. Constitution to impose their religious notions on every State of the nation, which is one thing they would STILL very much like to do.
The $1.5 million cost of defending DOMA represent less than one-one hundredth of one percent of the Justice Department's huge $28 billion budget. President Obama's defection of duty is responsible for incurring this cost; he should trim some fat and find the money to pay for it."
@omiolo Wrong, not a 'defection of duty'. As previously stated, there IS no duty for the executive branch to defend laws they themselves agree are unconsitutional. Their only duty is to enforce those laws until they are overturned or struck down as unconstitutional. In fact nearly every president has refused to defend various laws against legal challenges, including all your most beloved right wing douche'dents, like Regan and Bush.
@EmeraldView "defend laws they themselves agree are unconsitutional"
there is NO clause in the Constitution that says the executive branch gets to decide what is and is NOT constitutional. That is what scares me about the radical gay agenda, they make things up ALL the time.
@omiolo Oh really, WHAT exactly has the 'radical gay agenda' made up? You're just totally clueless, as most theist tend to be. Who said the executive branch can unilaterally declare what laws are or aren't constitutional? That's the courts job. The executive's obligation is to enforce duly enacted laws, period. They also run the attorney generals office, and THEY can decide which laws to devote their limited resources into defending against constitutional challenges as they deem fit and viable.
"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do: defend a law passed by bipartisan majorities. The cost of hiring lawyers to defend DOMA should be deducted from the budget of the Justice Department," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "
@omiolo The Executive branch is under NO obligation to spend its limited resources defending any law against legal challenges. Period. That means ANY law, not just one's that it, itself, has determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. The executive branch is only obligated to enforce the laws, which is IS doing in the case of DOMA, despite the fact that it considers it uncontitutional, and will not defend its consitutionality in court. Boehner is wasting tax payer money.
There is only one solution, RISING IN REPUBLIC. The lawful, peaceful, honorable & constitutional REPUBLIC.
Gov't has NO BUSINESS licensing a RIGHT - people have a Right to marry whoever they want, givernment shouldn't be infringing on people's rights one way or another.
REPUBLIC RISING ~ SLAVERY DEMOCRACY DEMISING
"... and to the Republic for which it stands..." is not just a slogan!
Wake Up, Stand Up - Opt Out & Join In - we're National & in every FREE state.
Christians of this generation have become such cowards. If our Founding Fathers were like this generation, we would still be a British commonwealth. The problem is that Christians love the things of this world so much that they are unwilling to stand up against a Government that is clearly doing EVIL. If Christians don't repent and stand up for what is right, I believe God is going to take away both their wealth and your rights. God will not bless moral cowards.
@MaryWaterton Well this lady is no such coward. What would it have been like if Nazi soldiers opted out instead of saying "I was just following orders"? The government is obliged to protect the right to hold and express religious convictions and not inaugurate political correctness as some new dogma that everyone has to pay lip service respect to. Don't tear down a fence unless you know the reason it was put up. Chipping away at marriage can end up in polygamy, incest and other perversions.
@MaryWaterton America isn't a theocracy.Ask James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the two biggest influences behind the founding of our nation, about that. If you want to live in a theocracy, Iran is always an option.
I say Iran,because you look at that nation and say there are awful human rights violations, not even having to do with your faith. Well, America is doing the same. If you wish to create a Christian, go elsewhere-if God is on your side, I'm sure he'll give you some land
I would like to make everyone aware that there is a difference between divorce and same sex marriage. Many practicing Christians and other religious denominations believe that divorce follows their religious and moral beliefs. This woman does not state her view on divorce but simply that she feels that the government cannot redefine marriage for her, and millions of people around the state. She has the right to stand up for what she believes in, as does the opposition.
@thevideoguy00 "This woman does not state her view on divorce but simply that she feels that the government cannot redefine marriage for her, and millions of people around the state. She has the right to stand up for what she believes in, as does the opposition. "
1. Her marriage hasn't changed after the passing of the marriage equality act.
2. She does have a right to stand up for what she believes in. She does not, however, have the right to forbid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
@rjs0416 Why do those who want to redefine marriage, believe that those who honor their faith and believe that God ordained marriage as a sacred act between a Man and a Woman, have no rights? What's next? A rewriting of the Bible to exclude all references to homosexuality in the Bible? Making it legal won't change the faith of those who believe in the sacredness of scripture.
@dsm19581 Who said anything about her having no rights?
1. Civil marriage was not redefined. The list of those who could receive civil marriage licenses was extended. Civil marriage remains the same.
2. Your version of sacramental/religious marriage is your own. Please do not use your religion to legally define something that is not a part of your life. AKA: Keep your religion out of my household.
@rjs0416 Please relax and stop insinuating that my comments were outrageous or filled with hyperbole. The view of marriage being between one man and one woman has been around since the beginning of time when God created Man and Woman. You are the one wishing to define it to support your lack of belief. I have no wish to redefine what is sacred and pronounced good by God.
@dsm19581 "What's next? A rewriting of the Bible to exclude all references to homosexuality in the Bible?" is a statement written in pure hyperbole.
"The view of marriage being between one man and one woman has been around since the beginning of time when God created Man and Woman." That is both revisionist history and your religious beliefs. Believe in it or not, but don't force said beliefs upon me and my family.
@dsm19581 "You are the one wishing to define it to support your lack of belief. I have no wish to redefine what is sacred and pronounced good by God."
Funny.... how you assume that because I am not Jewish/Christian/Muslim that I must be an atheist... I am not.
By all means, though, leave your version of sacramental marriage intact within your own religious communities. Don't try to force your religion upon me by preventing me from marrying the man I love.
3. It is not within her religious rights to deny a marriage license to a gay couple who come to file it. Her job and her religious beliefs are not one in the same. She can hold her religious beliefs AND still do her job with all legal requirements performed.
4. Who said anything about rewriting your bible? Stop the hyperbole.
5. "Making it legal won't change the faith of those who believe in the sacredness of scripture. "
a. It is legal in NYS.
b. I'm glad you agree. Town clerks CAN issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples as they are responsible for doing as a part of their job AND their religious beliefs remain untouched.
There is absolutely zero religious persecution here. The response would be the same even if Mrs. Belforti were an atheist who did the same thing.
Washington, D.C. – Two of the country's largest social conservative groups, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), have announced a joint voter guide which was unveiled today at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.
I strongly believe that it is immoral for a closeted gay man or lesbian to enter into a heterosexual marriage. If I was the clerk behind the counter the day Rose Marie and her husband applied for a marriage license, would I have been right to reject their application?
And Sabrina, the KKK has a right to be anti gay, black, asian, indian...whatever...so I guess, if ur shootin for that, you're in good company? You ahve the right to be anti-whatever..you also have the right to be called a discriminatory bigot.
Rose Marie may claim to be persecuted, but is it possible that by refusing to administer a same-sex marriage certificate, she would be persecuting others?
Whether or not you agree with same-sex marriage, as a civil servant you are bound to carry out your duties according to the law of the state, in this case New York.
The state of New York did not enact this law as a personal attack on you or anybody. And if you are unwilling to carry out your duty, I'm sure someone else will.
mrenneberg 1 week ago
It is situations like this, where people let their religious beliefs effect their job decisions.. It is sad. Keep God out of it, and do your job.. this is why we have all these issues in our country, and how it is ran.. =/
djamess16 2 weeks ago
you have no right to use your religion to decide your job. job description does not state use your own judgement, or a third party to decide whayt you do and don't do.
you have conflict quit or overcome and move on.
wcresponder 2 months ago
Ms Belforti when you went to obtain a legal civil marriage did the town clerk refuse to administer the state civil marriage law and refuse your civil marriage? Did the citizens of New York get to vote on whether you could get a civil marriage? LGBT New Yorkers are a small minority therefore can't vote their own equality and freedom into law. Do LGBT New Yorkers get to vote on whether you can have your civil marriage? If not, why not? Basically that's the other side of the coin you are playing
seahorse05 2 months ago
@seahorse05
You destroyed this video with your well-reasoned response. Good job!
RCSVirginia 2 months ago
Self-loathing becomes hate very quickly.
YourSupremeBeing 2 months ago
"I love helping people' says Rose - such a giving, kind spirited woman. (Well, unless of course you are a gay person - then Rose apparently thinks you can just go rot in hell.) And because Rose is a Christian she feels entitled to make up her own set of rules and pick and choose which parts of the job she was hired to to she will or will not do. Neat!
TheTruthHurts9999 2 months ago
Rose, you poor-poor girl, you have to do your job the way your employer says to do it, WAHHHHHHHHHHH. I believe 100% of all employee's have to do the job the way the employer tells them to do their job. It's pretty simple, if you don't want to do the job the way your employer says to do the job, then make room for someone who will. You all play the little victim.
indefenceofu 2 months ago
@indefenceofu
What a pleasure it is to see your smart and funny remark!
RCSVirginia 2 months ago
Marriage Anti-Defamation? So you all are looking to ban divorce? Over 50% of marriages do end in divorce. If anything is defaming marriage, that is.
hab99rry 2 months ago
What a load of crap. She can issue marriage licenses to Athiests, Satanists, and Pagans......but gays are SUDDENLY a problem?
She is a PUBLIC SERVANT .......if she doesn't want to serve the public, then quit!
clubindiana4 2 months ago
Watching yet another bigot in another vile NationForMarriage YT video left me feeling the need to be cleansed of its filth.
So, I watched a wonderful video that gave my mood a turn for the better and helped erase this nastiness from my mind.
"It's Time" by GetUpAustralia
Take a look for yourself, and you will see what I mean.
RCSVirginia 3 months ago
@RCSVirginia YES!!! Yes yes and re-yes. It's such a wonderful, wonderful video. Very touching and moving. Have you also seen the Zach Wahl video of his testimony in Iowa? He was raised by 2 moms and is an increadibly articulat and intelligent young man. It'll also cleanse you of NOM's filth, for sure! :-)
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz
Thanks. Yes, I have seen Zach Wahls. He is a great example of a young man raised by a gay family. In fact, I have three videos featuring him in my "Common Sense" playlist. After all, everything he has to say in then is good, old-fashioned common sense.
RCSVirginia 3 months ago
@RCSVirginia Yes, indeed it is heartwarming to see young people standing up for love and tolerance, and rejecting hate and bigotry. We need more of those in our world, they are such an inspiration! :-)
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz
"them," not "then." Oops, I wasn't proofreading, yet again.
RCSVirginia 3 months ago
NOM. Yes. It almost made it as a hate-group, as classified by the SPLC. They way they're evolving, they know they want the prize this year!
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
And seeing your channel I realize that Minxcomix is also anti-choice. Intolerant and hateful towards LGBT and disrespectful of women. Yeah. Those usually go hand in hand.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz You are correct in stating that I am anti-choice when it comes to giving others the legal right to decapitate a human being. I do not discriminate against the unborn human being and say that another human being simply for the fact that they are their mother, has a right to take away their life. I believe that all are created equal with the right to life. I do not support age discrimination.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Funny how that works, eh? Funny how the life of the woman involved is always overlooked in such matters. But abortions aren't going anywhere, despite anti-choicers lying and shamefully using scare tactics to get their way. Women know too well that losing this right would involve.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz I could respond to this abortion matter very easily and logically. But since this video is not about abortion it would be playing into your intent to distract from the point
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix I wasn't really trying to be distractive. I'm just pointing out that fundamentalists like yourself are usually anti everything that's not white, christian, middle-class, straight, and preferably male. You being anti-gay and anti-women is not surprising.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz I am not anti-gay, nor am I anti-woman. And just because you accuse me of being so does not make it so. Sticks and stones and all that. Ready to stay on topic yet?
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix So what IS the topic? You trying to convince me that it's ok to ban loving, committed couples from marrying? To convince me that civil rights are put up to discussion? I don't "debate" civil rights. I stand up for them.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
"Your sense of a family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state 'Congratulations! You're married!' No. The sense of family comes from the committment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones, it comes from the love that binds us, THAT'S what's make a family." Zach Wahl, from Iowa, raised by 2 moms, and what it means for his family to be able to marry.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Mr. Wahl may be o.k. with being willfully deprived a father, but he has no right to claim that for all children. Every child has a right to a father and a mother, innumerable studies prove that children raised in households with both their father and mother present and married to each other do far better then single parent households. The best a same sex couple can offer a child is a single parent household. Two women together willfully deprives a child their right to a father
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Children deserve a loving, stable environment. Where are your studies showing that children suffer in same-sex families? You're trying to justify discrimination but however you present it, however you try to justify it, people realize more and more the harm that is done to gays and lesbians by denying them this basic civil right.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Keyword search "study, children, mother, father" and you will find numerous ones that show that mothers are not inconsequential, nor are fathers. You will find studies that show that children do best when their parents are married to each other. Show me any study which states that same sex partners are comparable to *married biological (or original adoptive) mothers and fathers*. The best you will find will show comparable to a single parent.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
You're a public employee! If you can't apply the laws of the state of New York to all people/couples you serve equally, then you shouldn't be in that job. Stop calling yourself a victim cause those of us with brains and education see right through your bulls%&*
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius She is not discriminating against people, she is refusing to participate in an action which violates her religious beliefs. If a gay man came in and filed for a marriage license 2 years ago, she would've issued it. If a gay man comes in today and files for a marriage license with a woman, she will issue it. It is not the person that is being discriminated against, it is the practice and forcing her to support it in any way violates her religious belief.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix. She is discriminating against gay couples. New York law allows both opposite sex and same-sex couples to marry. Telling a gay couple in her office that she won't sign a license for them but choosing to sign one for a straight couple is discrimination under the law. If her religious beliefs are so strong that she can't follow NY law, then she shouldn't be in that job. She has every right to deny a marriage license to a gay couple that enters her church, but not a state office.
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius Do you honestly believe that if two straight men filed for a marriage license that she would issue it for them?
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Why would 2 straight men marry? If your response is "to denigrate the institution of marriage," that was happening before same sex marriage was legal. As a public employee, you are obligated to treat all citizens you serve equally under the law. It is discrimination for the state (represented by a state employee) to deny a marriage license to 2 gay people who qualify under NY law. As a state employee, Ms. Belforti's religious beliefs do not give her the right to disobey NY law.
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius "As a public employee, you are obligated to treat all citizens you serve equally under the law." Precisely. Imagine the zoo if employees were allowed to interpret the law as they see fit, do as they please, and deny other citizens their civil rights simply because they feel like it... Rose Marie Belforti must either follow the law of find another job.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz In the state that I live in everyone with same sex attraction can marry just as well as anyone who hasn't same sex attraction. No discrimination, the same rules apply for all. Where is the inequality? Whereas in NY where marriage has been changed to now instead be about two people who want to make a public lifetime commitment to each other discriminates against those too closely related or who are already married to someone else. *That's* discrimination!
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix The rule has been changed in New York to allow two people who are in love to marry, regardless of their gender! As a lesbian woman I will not marry a man I do not love. I will marry a woman that I love and with whom I will remain committed. You know, your argument is like saying "oh black people had the same rights to marry, just not a white person." It's a lousy argument because at the end of the day it STILL denies citizens their civil rights.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGesc Society has for all time supported marriage because marriage supports society thru procreation and the best environment to raise children in with their fundamental right to both their father and mother being met. At times there was discrimination against interacial marriage because of ignorance which claimed that children from interracial marriage suffered. However it is not ignorance that claims that two women cannot provide children with a father. Why should society support you?
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix The best environment to raise a child might just be 2 moms or 2 dads in some cases. It's ridiculous and discriminatory to claim gays and lesbians cannot raise children. We've been doing so for centuries and nothing will change to that fact. Children deserve to see their moms and dads married. And gays and lesbians who cannot marry suffer just like interracial couples suffered in the 1960s. It's blatant, ugly discrimination all over again.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Who is stating that those with same sex attraction cannot raise children? You are ignoring the fact that only in marriage of man/woman can children be procreated *and* raised by both their mother and father, and this is the best environment for a child and is *why* society has supported marriage. Why should society support relationships which willfully denies a child a parent and has made the priority in the family about the desires of the adults over the needs of the child?
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix First off, it's not an "attraction": it's love. Whether between 2 men, 2 women, a man and a woman, it's all the same. Second, why should society NOT support same- sex relationships? Why should the state deny its citizens their civil rights? Who says the needs of the child are disregarded? I plan to have kids one day, with my FEMALE partner. Yes, we'll be a lesbian couple raising kids. And we'll provide a wonderful environment for that child.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix I mean, you really have no basis here. Marriage is not based on procreation. Elderly couples, infertile couples, couples who do not want kids are allowed to marry. There's nothing that says "must have kids before X number of years or the marriage becomes null and void" and you know this. What is happening here is that you are making a lame attempt at justifying discrimination against LGBT individuals. THAT's what's happening, and I'll call you on it.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And why should society NOT support me? My parents support me. My friends support me. YOU don't get to chose who will get to wed, and who will not. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't go to one, all I care. But depriving taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of civil rights is wrong, and will always be wrong.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Marriage is supported by society because only in marriage are the future generation of said society procreated *and* are provided with their fundamental right to both a mother and a father present in a committed, stable relationship. Society should *not* support your relationship in like because it is the nature of your *relationship* to be infertile and because it denies any children brought into your relationship their fundamental right to a father
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Like I said, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It has everything to do with love, committment, raising kids, which both straight and gay couples already experience and do.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And no one forces you to support gay marriage. But what you are asking everyone here is to tolerate your intolerance. You are imposing your bigoted views on everyone out there, on my friends, my family, my children (one day), my partner, you are passing judgments on our lives, our relationships, and I find this despicable. Not to mention that I really don't see why the state should deny citizens their civil rights unless they have a good reason to do so.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz "Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't go to one, all I care." You said it! Whatever happened to live and let live? I would respect those who don't favor same-sex marriage if they simply sat back and didn't get all huffy about individuals making personal choices to marry the person they love and get the legal benefits, whether opposite-sex or same-sex. And they blame us for starting this "culture war."
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius Your post here shows ignorance or denial of the reason why society supports marriage. It is incorrect to hold that marriage is simply about two people who love each other and wish to commit their lives together. This denies that marriage is also about family, procreating and raising the next generation.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Marriage is not about procreation. Show me where making tons of babies is a requirement to get married.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz I did not state that marriage was about procreation, only that it is why society supports marriage civilly. You can choose to participate in a unitive ceremony with anyone you want and personally call it a marriage, that has always been your right. But this is not what is being sought, what is being sought is a requirement for all others to also call it marriage, and for society to support it even tho it is impossible for such unions to support society in an equal manner
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And there's no reason why EVERYONE should think your way. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't go to one. Don't impose your morality on others, especially since christianity is not exactly a shining example when it comes to morality, to say the least. I thankfully live where my rights are not denied, and my marriage would in no way be less of one than yours, or that of any straight couple.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Have a ceremony and call it a marriage all you want, keep it in your household, it's none of my business or concern. It becomes other's business and concern however when you want to change it for everyone else, forcing *your* ideals down everyone else's throat, and then requiring society to support you equally as other married couples when it is impossible for you to provide to society equally by your own willful choice
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And YOU want to impose YOUR religious views on everyone. Don't like gay marriage? Don't go to one. The fact that the state would allow me to marry my partner has ZERO effect on YOUR life.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Again, my points presented have nothing to do with religion. If you keep bringing it up, it only proves how weak yours are in countering my non religious points.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Fine. Let's keep religion out of this, as it should be given that we live in a secular society. So. What's your argument for banning loving, committed same-sex couples to marry? Why should YOU decide for ALL of us, who may not share your views? I mean, get real. You are calling us intolerant while YOU impose YOUR way of seeing things on everyone?
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Countess Again, society supports marriage because only in marriage can the next generation be raised with their fundamental right to both theirparents in a committed stable environment which countless studies show that which we've known throughout time that this is the best environment in which to raise children. Same sex unions are incapable of this. Have a ceremony, call yourself married, but since you cannot support society in the same manner it is not right to require society to support you
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Ok, how many times must I repeat this? Marriage is not based on procreation. Gay couples have kids and those kids deserve to be raised in a stable, married family. Same-sex unions are just as capable of raising kids and leading them through adulthood so they become productive individuals in the society they live in. There's no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Marriage may/may not be based on procreation, that is beside the point. The point is that (and excuse the caps, but you seem to keep missing this) THE REASON WHY SOCIETY SUPPORTS MARRIAGE IS BASED ON PROCREATION *AND* THE RAISING OF CHILDREN WITH BOTH A FATHER AND MOTHER.
Again, please excuse the caps, but you keep missing *Why society supports*. Like I stated, have a ceremony, call yourself married, but don't expect society to support you when you don't support society
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And in what ways are gay couples not capable of raising kids, just like straight couples are? In what ways do kids raised in committed, loving, stable gay families suffer? No studies have shown this. You are making a claim based on a non-existent harm done to children raised by same-sex parents. It's despicable.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And why should society not support me? Why should society abide by your narrow, intolerant views? Why should society tolerate intolerance?
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix So bottom line is: you have to support your assertion that gay couples are less worthy than straight couples. You can't. And so you're struggling to justify intolerance.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Less worthy? How so?
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix At the end of the day, when it comes to the question: "Why should we ban gay marriage" you have no logical, rational answer to offer. You cannot make ANY case that's not based on religion. And given that we live in a secular world you must base your case on facts and logic, not religion and discrimination (funny how both so often go hand in hand...).
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT MARRIAGE IS ABOUTt? Your definition of marriage as explained above may work for you and many others, but you do not have a monopoly on what marriage is. What about a post-menopausal woman choosing to marry even though she can't reproduce? Or a young couple who choose not to have children but want to share their lives with one another? Or two senior citizens who just want companionship during their golden years. Define marriage for yourself!
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius Her definition of marriage is essentially a religious one. Which is fine. But it belongs in churches. Not at the state/federal level. Church and state are kept separate, for good reasons. We all know what happens when they're not.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius Again, have a ceremony and call your union a marriage all you want, keep it in your household, in your social circle, whatever. But to *require* others to call your relationship a marriage is forcing your alteration of marriage down everyone else's throat. The only reason why my marriage is supported by society is because it is capable of providing the next generation of said society with the best environment to grow up in, a mother *and* a father. Same sex unions are incapable
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Again, YOU are forcing your homophobia and intolerance on everyone else. YOU want us to keep quiet, to go back to the closet. Not gonna happen. WHY should the state not recognize gay marriage? What is your compelling argument for that?
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz How is my stating the fact that the reason society supports marriage is because only thru marriage is the next generation procreated *and* given the best possible environment to be raised in homophobic or intolerant or forcing anyone to deny their tendencies?
And again, the reason why states should not support same sex unions as marriage is because they do not equally support society as marriage does. The very nature of such unions is infertile and denies children a parent.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Again we're talking in circles, and this argument is bogus and I've explained why. Marriage has nothing to do with how many little cute babies a couple produces. You and I know this.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And how do same-sex marriage not support society the way straight marriage do? I'm sorry but this is rubbish and a lame attempt at justifying intolerance and discrimination. Same-sex marriages are just as worthy as straight ones are.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Same sex unions are infertile by their very nature it is unable to procreate and provide society with the next generation which will support said society. It is also unable to provide any children brought into the relationship with their fundamental right to both a mother and a father. In fact it is a willful denial of a parent to any children and thusly makes priority in such a family structure the desires and preferences of the adults over the needs of any children
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Ok seriously. Marriage is not based on procreation.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz That is beside the point. It is neither here nor there in regards to the point I've made
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And children have the right to live in a loving, stable environment. Which both gay and straight couples are able to provide.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz As a lesbian then, is it your claim that fathers are inconsequential to children?
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix There are many kinds of families. A father who is part of the family unit, part of the childrearing process of course is consequential in that child's life. But 2 women can perfecly raise kids, and as a lesbian I would make sure for my child to have male models in his/her life.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz But your union willfully prohibits any hope for a child to be raised in the same household as their father. Numerous studies prove that children do best raised in the same household as both their biological or adoptive parents being married to each other. Your same sex union is incapable of this and at best can only be compared to a single parent raised child
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix "Numerous studies prove that children do best raised in the same household as both their biological or adoptive parents being married to each other." Which is why children in same-sex families deserve to have their parents married.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And yes, some "genitors" are inconsequential to children. Sperm donors for instance. Should we ban this too? Funny how that is never discussed. Nope. Somehow it's only gay couples that are the targets of homophobic attacks. Again, show me why we should deny citizens their civil rights. You havn't yet.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Actually sperm donation *is* often discussed. It has created it's own can of sperms ;-) But that's another hot topic altogether. No one is crying out for their right to marry the sperm donor of their children.
Countess, I have to turn in. Thank you for the interaction and discussion. I wish you well. G'nite
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Good night to you too! And it's been "interesting" to interact with you. I just hope that if you truly believe in God and follow his doctrine, that he will open your heart and help you to stop discriminating against LGBT individuals. And for the record, I WILL have desire for my partner when I find her because I have no intention of entering sham relationships with a man just to please individuals like you. As far as I'm concerned, no desire = no partner either.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Anyways, it is late and I am going to bed. I could continue "arguing" with you but you would not bring anything more to the table than the old homophobic and intolerant arguments. But I'm confident that one day LGBT people won't have to tolerate your intolerance.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And it's not a desire or a preference. I did not chose to be gay. When did you chose to become heterosexual? Homosexuality is not a choice. Homophobia is.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGesch Your desire is to be with a female. If it were not, you would not be a lesbian. Love is a choice. We choose to love others. Unadvisable as it may be, you have every right to get married anywhere in the U.S. You have chosen not to because it is your desire to be with a woman not a man, but no one has denied you the right to marry and you could chose to do so. The fact that you would not be sexually attracted to your husband would make it difficult, but you would be no less married
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And no, I will not marry a man. That would NOT be honest to me or to the man, given that I do not love men. But that's the great irony. I could simply marry any dude I've just met on the street, which to you would be absolutely acceptable, but for me to marry the woman of my life that is not ok. I fail to see any sort of logic here. Marriage are based on love and committment. Not on the ability (or not) to make little babies.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@Minxcomix And no, you're absolutely crazy. I won't marry or force myself to sleep with a man I do not love and to whom I am not attracted, you can be sure of that. And why? Because I love women. Not men. It's not a "desire" or a "fancy" or an "attraction." It's love, and the desire to spend the rest of my life with someone of the same sex.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Sorry to hear you have no desire for you partner. Good luck with that.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius Sadly, for those fundamentalist christians like Minxcomix, only THEY have the right to impose their laws on others. Live and let live? They have long stopped abiding by that principle. And they are using ridiculous arguments in order to justify discrimination and denial of civil rights, directed towards other citizens. Live and let live? That's why I'm an atheist. I had enough about the christianist agenda and their control of people's lives.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz I am not a fundamentalist, nor am I imposing any laws on anyone. It is actually the minority of those who are forcing down the throat of everyone else *their* concept of marriage who are imposing laws. Every state that has brought this matter up to vote has supported the real marriage. It is only the states in which a few people have made the decision for all which has introduced this discriminatory version. You can choose to marry ceremoniously anyone you want, I don't care
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Oh come on now. Assume yourself. You ARE a fundamentalist. And yes you are imposing your views, your morality on everyone else. You are asking everyone to tolerate your intolerance. Marriage at the state level is a secular institution. Your religion has nothing to do with it. And as it now stands, gay marriage bans hurt gay couples, deprive them of rights and of the possibility to express their committment to their family and friends. It's hateful.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz Why are you bringing religion into this? I haven't, for I do not have any need to. Do you need me to be religious in order for you to be able to support your pov? That's a rather weak pov if so. If I do not need to bring religion into this, then you, as a identified atheist should not have the need either.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Oh please. Your page is LITTERED with religious allusions to Jesus, God, the Bible, and what else. Ok, so be it. But it's important to point out the havoc that religions have created in this world, the discrimination, intolerance, killings, wars, that they have been responsible for. Morality? Is christianity the kind of morality I want to abide for? No thanks.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz My page is yes. But my points here have not addressed it at all, nor do I have any need to. Do you discount anyone who has religious beliefs on everything? Rather intolerant of you Or maybe I was correct, you *do* need me to have religious beliefs in order to feel confident about your own pov on the matter at hand because you are not strong enough to counter logical arguments that I have presented.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Religious beliefs surely can be brought in. But what arguments, religious or otherwise, have you brought to the table? I havn't seen anything remotely justifying the ban on gay marriage in anything you wrote so far. It's all the same old tried rhetoric. I've seen it all before. Lame attempts at justifying intolerance. At the end of the day it only makes YOU look intolerant and it's a win for us.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz then you have obviously not read my posts.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix Oh, BTW: you should look into the various configurations of marriage in the bible. Rape, incest, polygamy... all are perfectly justified there. Gross. Disgusting, actually. King Solomon can have 300 wives but when a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman, that's immoral? Give me a f%$? break.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz I'd rather keep the Bible out of this as I only discuss religious concepts with other believers. Thank you for the pov tho.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz True. The "Religious Reich" wants to impose biblical law on the entire country. Freedom of religion also means the choice not to practice religion if one chooses. Minxcomix and others like her will never understand that concept or "live and let live."
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius No, they really don't. They impose their morality on others, their views, they deny others their civil rights, and then they play the victim when we fight back. Well, guess what? LGBT people are not about to give up. Civil rights remain civil rights and their denial to any group in the population is despicable.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius You too. None of my points involved religion. If you keep bringing religion into this argument it only shows that you are finding yourself unable to counter the points I have presented.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius Please do not presuppose other's answers to your question.
Why would 2 "straight"s marry? Single parenthood. However more likely would be two "straight" women marrying tho, as women tend have more of a desire to have one stay at home with the kids while the other brings home benefits. If you think that "same sex" marriage laws will only lead to people with same sex attraction marrying, then you are naive.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix You're just full of NOM's repetitive talking points. There will always be a margin of society that "abuses marriage," but that existed long before the 2003 MA Court marriage equality decision. "Paper marriages" (marrying somebody to stay in the US) and getting married in a drunk stupor with a one-night stand in Vegas were going on well before 2003. Somehow those scenarios seem to be more of a threat to marriage than a loving, committed gay couple tying the knot in a civil ceremony.
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius What is NOM?
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix NOM is the group that produced and broadcasted the video above. I'm going to sign off for the night. I, a man, am going to make love to my husband as recognized by the state of Massachusetts.
wonkaquarius 3 months ago
@wonkaquarius Thank you. I was directed towards this link thru elsewhere. I will look into NOM. Thank you. Have a good night.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
I love how they open the video with "This is the first time in my whole life, that i've had to actually receive persecution." How ironic.
wonderboy2k3 3 months ago
To see a good example of a young man from the type of family that this self-pitying phony would like see deprived of its legitimate rights, take a look at the YouTube videos:
"Zach Wahls Speaks About Family" by Divulgate
"Zach Wahls Talks About His Inspiring Speech" by TheEllenShow
Ask yourself the question, "Who is more appealing, decent and honest? This creature or young Mr. Wahls?"
RCSVirginia 3 months ago
The institution of marriage is not only derived from religion but nature for the perpetration of the family. Other unions can exist but they do not have the right to call themselves marriage and thereby dilute the definition of the concept that existed from time immemorial (that included polygamous opposite sex unions). Discrimination and setting boundaries are necessary, otherwise the road is open for incest, three or more somes, child and just about marrying anything.
zamyrabyrd 3 months ago
Boo, hoo, hoo! What a crybaby! She wants to discriminate against people in her job and the mean, bad state of New York will not let her do that. Isn't that just too damn bad!
RCSVirginia 3 months ago
@RCSVirginia Do you honestly believe that this woman would issue a marriage certificate for two "straight" men? There is no discrimination against people coming from this woman. However there now *is* discrimination coming from NY and other states that have made exceptions to marriage for the 'same sex' crowd. Now that they have made marriage solely about being with the person you love, there is discrimination against other groups like close relatives or those already married to others.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
Get use to the persecution. Like radical Muslims, radical homosexuals will make anyone pay who they think might have wronged them.
YesProp8 3 months ago
There is no constitutional right to discriminate against a certain group of people. Either you do your job for ALL citizens, or for no one. Could someone refuse to perform interracial marriages? No. Can someone refuse to perform gay marriage? No.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz You claim this is discrimination against a group of people. So do you too believe then that this woman would issue a marriage certificate to two women if these women were "straight"? I think not. She is not discriminating against people, she is discriminating against a practice. If a lesbian came in and filed for a marriage certificate for a marriage between her and a man, this woman would issue it. She would not discriminate against the woman due to her sexual preference.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
@Minxcomix The law allows 2 men or 2 women to get married. It doesn't matter if they identify as gay, bi, or heck, straight so your point is entirely moot. If she won't/can't follow the law and her job description she should be fired. Would we allow such "conscience excemptions" if she was against interracial marriage? She has the right to be a hater and a bigot. She has not the right to deny LGBT individuals their civil rights.
CountessGeschwitz 3 months ago
@CountessGeschwitz My point was in response to your statement "There is no constitutional right to discriminate against a certain group of people." Therefore it is not moot. The woman is not discriminating against a certain group of people as you claim.
Minxcomix 3 months ago
Nothing has happened to her as of now, so I must ask why she is in this ad?
jess111rocks 3 months ago
"Our goal in Iowa is to play a constructive role in ensuring that the people of Iowa have the right to vote on the definition of marriage and we intend to see that happen," said Brian Brown, NOM's president.
omiolo 3 months ago
"The leadership of the state Senate has blocked a vote on marriage even though voters in 31 other states have enjoyed that right. We supported Cindy Golding in the 18th Senate District special election because she was committed to allowing a vote on marriage. While we are disappointed that she didn't win this tight election, we have no doubt that we will eventually prevail. Ultimately, democracy will not be denied in Iowa and the people will get their vote."
omiolo 3 months ago
Wasn't Rose Marie Belforti just re-elected to the office of Town Clerk in New York? Doesn't that mean it's safe to assume she ran for office *knowing* that the oath of office includes a pledge to uphold state laws and the state Constitution?
But she *also* wants to be exempt from the parts of her job she doesn't agree with? How in the *world* does NOM figure this to be persecution?
zortnac 3 months ago
Washington, DC - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the decision of the US Senate Judiciary Committee which voted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and pledged a fierce fight on the Senate floor to stop San Francisco liberals from redefining marriage for the entire country.
omiolo 3 months ago
@omiolo Oh boo hoo. So I guess NOM doesn't really like our Constitutional Republic then. Our duly elected officials are working to legislate what the majority (and a rapidly growing majority) of Americans now want (or agree is fitting), marriage equality for same-gender couples. Replacing the, already found by federal courts to be, unconstitutional DOMA with the Respect for Marriage Act which states the federal government is to recognize ALL marriages legally performed in any U.S. State.
EmeraldView 3 months ago
NOM Pledges Nationwide Mobilization of Supporters To Preserve Marriage in the US Senate
Group says San Francisco Liberals Can't Stand The Fact that California and Other states Have Voted to Protect Marriage
omiolo 3 months ago
First thing that occurs to me is that she parrots the NOM party line about same-sex marriage being subject to a referendum. See, Rosie, the way these things work in a *representative* democracy is that people vote for REPRESENTATIVES. We don't have rule by referendum, we have elected representatives who make our laws. For a government official, you sure don't know much.
And, too bad you choose to follow a religion that commands you to be a bigot, but that's your problem. Suck it up.
chicagogemini007 3 months ago
I am very supportive of gay rights, I think rose seems nice but i think she should not be working for the public if she cant fulfill the duties of that job!! Goodluck rose and sorry we strongly disagree with eachother
JoeyBoya 3 months ago
If people have rights they have rights, how can you argue for the rights of one and ignore the rights of another. That is just as hypocritcal and bigoted as you all are calling this lady. But it ok for you all to call names, but if someone uses derogitory names towards homosexuals that's hateful. Simple fix someone else could have done that so she could maintain her integrity, and belief it is wrong.Why is everyone so hostlie towards christians? Do they not have the same freedoms of choice?
vincelam 3 months ago
@vincelam This woman is an individual and she can be characterized based on her own actions and beliefs. Calling someone out for what they've actually done or actually believe is not hateful, if they are based on astute and valid observations. We do not allow our elected officials and public servants to pick and choose which individuals they will service based on their individual sentiments. If we did, anyone could refuse to do parts of their job for any reason by claiming religious belief.
EmeraldView 3 months ago
Am I the only one how releases that this women is rille boochy for a christen women.
Loganhhhh 3 months ago
0:00 - 0:005 FIRST TIME TO RECEIVE PERSECUTION!? And what are you spreading across the board? TO PERSECUTE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, you typical bigot hypocrite. I'm glad you're old, you'll die soon anyway.
adrianarmesto 3 months ago
Oh cry for me, your recieving persecution? How about when every establishment you go to has people say "Wait, your Christian and dont like gays? lemme go get someone else Christian to help you" then you really would be whining you bigot
RedChaosLV 3 months ago
@RedChaosLV
What a great comment! Would the bigoted, nasty piece-of-work ever be whining if no-one other than Christians would be assisting her in any government office.
RCSVirginia 3 months ago
@RCSVirginia oh i know they would. Every christian organization would be up in arms about it. And as they always spout, its a choice, so if you choose to be christian i choose not to help you
RedChaosLV 3 months ago
Suck it up lady, You are a civil servent when you take a job in the civil service you get benefits such as better pay and pension,........paid for by everyone including gay taxpayers. In turn you commit to serving fairly applying the rule of law regardless of your beliefs. If that is not acceptable to you go back to your goats !!!
enginemedic24 3 months ago
@enginemedic24 AMEN!
This woman broke the law. Plain and simple!
xxbrokenwishesxx 3 months ago
I wonder what the stupid woman and NOM would be saying had they put it to the vote and the people had passed it into law. New Yorkers in general seem modern enough on this issue to not bother themselves with who each and other are marrying. Gay marriage affects no one but the two people who decide to partake in one. These mindless bigots need to get a life.
kddan2 4 months ago
@kddan2 Actually we know what NOM would do IF 'the people voted' directly on the equal rights of their fellow citizens and it didn't go their way. I posted in their own forums at one point, and the NOM supporters agreed that if 'the people' voted in favor of marriage equality for same gender couples, then they would have no other choice but to amend the U.S. Constitution to impose their religious notions on every State of the nation, which is one thing they would STILL very much like to do.
EmeraldView 3 months ago
The $1.5 million cost of defending DOMA represent less than one-one hundredth of one percent of the Justice Department's huge $28 billion budget. President Obama's defection of duty is responsible for incurring this cost; he should trim some fat and find the money to pay for it."
omiolo 4 months ago
@omiolo Wrong, not a 'defection of duty'. As previously stated, there IS no duty for the executive branch to defend laws they themselves agree are unconsitutional. Their only duty is to enforce those laws until they are overturned or struck down as unconstitutional. In fact nearly every president has refused to defend various laws against legal challenges, including all your most beloved right wing douche'dents, like Regan and Bush.
EmeraldView 3 months ago
@EmeraldView "defend laws they themselves agree are unconsitutional"
there is NO clause in the Constitution that says the executive branch gets to decide what is and is NOT constitutional. That is what scares me about the radical gay agenda, they make things up ALL the time.
omiolo 3 months ago
@omiolo Oh really, WHAT exactly has the 'radical gay agenda' made up? You're just totally clueless, as most theist tend to be. Who said the executive branch can unilaterally declare what laws are or aren't constitutional? That's the courts job. The executive's obligation is to enforce duly enacted laws, period. They also run the attorney generals office, and THEY can decide which laws to devote their limited resources into defending against constitutional challenges as they deem fit and viable.
EmeraldView 3 months ago
"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do: defend a law passed by bipartisan majorities. The cost of hiring lawyers to defend DOMA should be deducted from the budget of the Justice Department," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "
omiolo 4 months ago
@omiolo The Executive branch is under NO obligation to spend its limited resources defending any law against legal challenges. Period. That means ANY law, not just one's that it, itself, has determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. The executive branch is only obligated to enforce the laws, which is IS doing in the case of DOMA, despite the fact that it considers it uncontitutional, and will not defend its consitutionality in court. Boehner is wasting tax payer money.
EmeraldView 3 months ago
Poor lady!
She might lose her PART-TIME JOB!!!
Why wont someone ask Rush Limbaugh which of his 4 marriages was the one sanctioned and sacred in the eyes of God?!
TalesofStories 4 months ago
There is only one solution, RISING IN REPUBLIC. The lawful, peaceful, honorable & constitutional REPUBLIC.
Gov't has NO BUSINESS licensing a RIGHT - people have a Right to marry whoever they want, givernment shouldn't be infringing on people's rights one way or another.
REPUBLIC RISING ~ SLAVERY DEMOCRACY DEMISING
"... and to the Republic for which it stands..." is not just a slogan!
Wake Up, Stand Up - Opt Out & Join In - we're National & in every FREE state.
RepublicForTheunitedStates. org
PORTUGAL1010 4 months ago
Christians of this generation have become such cowards. If our Founding Fathers were like this generation, we would still be a British commonwealth. The problem is that Christians love the things of this world so much that they are unwilling to stand up against a Government that is clearly doing EVIL. If Christians don't repent and stand up for what is right, I believe God is going to take away both their wealth and your rights. God will not bless moral cowards.
MaryWaterton 4 months ago
@MaryWaterton Well this lady is no such coward. What would it have been like if Nazi soldiers opted out instead of saying "I was just following orders"? The government is obliged to protect the right to hold and express religious convictions and not inaugurate political correctness as some new dogma that everyone has to pay lip service respect to. Don't tear down a fence unless you know the reason it was put up. Chipping away at marriage can end up in polygamy, incest and other perversions.
zamyrabyrd 4 months ago
@MaryWaterton America isn't a theocracy.Ask James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the two biggest influences behind the founding of our nation, about that. If you want to live in a theocracy, Iran is always an option.
I say Iran,because you look at that nation and say there are awful human rights violations, not even having to do with your faith. Well, America is doing the same. If you wish to create a Christian, go elsewhere-if God is on your side, I'm sure he'll give you some land
MisterDyslexo 4 months ago
@MaryWaterton it is already happening but Folks won't see it that way.
vincelam 3 months ago
lol she is a lesbian.
chercherchercher 4 months ago
I would like to make everyone aware that there is a difference between divorce and same sex marriage. Many practicing Christians and other religious denominations believe that divorce follows their religious and moral beliefs. This woman does not state her view on divorce but simply that she feels that the government cannot redefine marriage for her, and millions of people around the state. She has the right to stand up for what she believes in, as does the opposition.
thevideoguy00 4 months ago
@thevideoguy00 "This woman does not state her view on divorce but simply that she feels that the government cannot redefine marriage for her, and millions of people around the state. She has the right to stand up for what she believes in, as does the opposition. "
1. Her marriage hasn't changed after the passing of the marriage equality act.
2. She does have a right to stand up for what she believes in. She does not, however, have the right to forbid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
rjs0416 4 months ago
@rjs0416 Why do those who want to redefine marriage, believe that those who honor their faith and believe that God ordained marriage as a sacred act between a Man and a Woman, have no rights? What's next? A rewriting of the Bible to exclude all references to homosexuality in the Bible? Making it legal won't change the faith of those who believe in the sacredness of scripture.
dsm19581 4 months ago
@dsm19581 Who said anything about her having no rights?
1. Civil marriage was not redefined. The list of those who could receive civil marriage licenses was extended. Civil marriage remains the same.
2. Your version of sacramental/religious marriage is your own. Please do not use your religion to legally define something that is not a part of your life. AKA: Keep your religion out of my household.
con't
rjs0416 4 months ago
@rjs0416 Please relax and stop insinuating that my comments were outrageous or filled with hyperbole. The view of marriage being between one man and one woman has been around since the beginning of time when God created Man and Woman. You are the one wishing to define it to support your lack of belief. I have no wish to redefine what is sacred and pronounced good by God.
dsm19581 4 months ago
@dsm19581 "What's next? A rewriting of the Bible to exclude all references to homosexuality in the Bible?" is a statement written in pure hyperbole.
"The view of marriage being between one man and one woman has been around since the beginning of time when God created Man and Woman." That is both revisionist history and your religious beliefs. Believe in it or not, but don't force said beliefs upon me and my family.
con't
rjs0416 4 months ago
@dsm19581 "You are the one wishing to define it to support your lack of belief. I have no wish to redefine what is sacred and pronounced good by God."
Funny.... how you assume that because I am not Jewish/Christian/Muslim that I must be an atheist... I am not.
By all means, though, leave your version of sacramental marriage intact within your own religious communities. Don't try to force your religion upon me by preventing me from marrying the man I love.
rjs0416 4 months ago
@dsm19581
3. It is not within her religious rights to deny a marriage license to a gay couple who come to file it. Her job and her religious beliefs are not one in the same. She can hold her religious beliefs AND still do her job with all legal requirements performed.
4. Who said anything about rewriting your bible? Stop the hyperbole.
con't
rjs0416 4 months ago
@dsm19581
5. "Making it legal won't change the faith of those who believe in the sacredness of scripture. "
a. It is legal in NYS.
b. I'm glad you agree. Town clerks CAN issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples as they are responsible for doing as a part of their job AND their religious beliefs remain untouched.
There is absolutely zero religious persecution here. The response would be the same even if Mrs. Belforti were an atheist who did the same thing.
rjs0416 4 months ago
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, SBA LIST
ANNOUNCE JOINT VOTER GUIDE ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AT VALUES VOTER SUMMIT
Groups Seek to Highlight Republicans' Positions on Important Life, Marriage Issues
omiolo 4 months ago
Washington, D.C. – Two of the country's largest social conservative groups, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), have announced a joint voter guide which was unveiled today at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.
omiolo 4 months ago
I strongly believe that it is immoral for a closeted gay man or lesbian to enter into a heterosexual marriage. If I was the clerk behind the counter the day Rose Marie and her husband applied for a marriage license, would I have been right to reject their application?
bosarch 4 months ago
And Sabrina, the KKK has a right to be anti gay, black, asian, indian...whatever...so I guess, if ur shootin for that, you're in good company? You ahve the right to be anti-whatever..you also have the right to be called a discriminatory bigot.
RCinSoCal2 4 months ago