RSS
 

Archive for July, 2011

Question for NOM #1

25 Jul

Can a gay couple who runs a reception hall deny services to an orthodox Christian couple getting married? If not, why not?

 

22 Jul

Get ready for crying on the religious right that it is no longer legal to fire gay people from the military simply for being gay.

Pentagon and White house certify DADT repeal. Effective in 30 days.

 
No Comments

Posted in Legal

 

NY Town Clerk quits over gay marriage

13 Jul

A Town Clerk in Barker New York has resigned rather than sign any gay marriage licenses according to the incorrectly named website “New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms”

In a resignation letter presented to the Barker Town Board on July 11, Ms. Fotusky presented the following letter of resignation:

“To the Town of Barker Board, Supervisor Dilworth, Attorney Lewis and the Town Residents,”

“I have been in contact with Jason McGuire from New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, our Town Attorney, Richard Lewis, and a Constitutional Lawyer regarding the Marriage Equality Act that was passed June 24, 2011.  There was no protection provided in the legislation for Town Clerks who are unable to sign these marriage licenses due to personal religious convictions, even though our US Constitution supports freedom of religion.

I believe that there is a higher law than the law of the land. It is the law of God in the Bible.  In Acts 5:29, it states, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men. The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures. Since I love and follow Him, I cannot put my signature on something that is against God.  Deuteronomy 10:12 says, ‘…What does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good.

I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure. Therefore, I will be resigning as of July 21. I wanted you to know my position as I understand the marriage law goes into effect on July 24.

 It has been a pleasure and privilege to serve the Town as Barker Town Clerk.”

I smell hypocrisy. If she was so worried about signing her name on something that was against God, was she refusing to sign the marriage licenses of all applicants who have been divorced? In Luke 16:18 says “”Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”. Mark 10:2-12 echos this.
So this town clerk has been signing her name to marriages that are against God, the Bible, and Jesus for as long as she has been in that role. I support her decision to stand by her moral convictions…. if only she were actually consistent about it.

I am an I.T. guy. I firmly believe that Windows XP is absolutely inadequate in a business environment from a security and performance perspective. If I went to my boss and said “I will no longer support Windows XP machines and will only support Windows 7 machines from here on out”, my boss would rightly fire me for refusing to do the job I am paid for. The Town Clerk’s job is to affirm that the applicants for marriage are eligible according to the laws of the State of New York…. not her own laws, or her God’s laws, or her Bible’s laws, or anything that her Great Aunt Mildrid says should be law. By formerly stating that she refuses to perform the duties that the job entails, she should NOT be allowed to resign but should be fired on the spot for negligence.

 
 

The debate carries on….. part 1

03 Jul

I’m going to start posting my replies to the internet hate crowd on here. Some of them are too good to leave out on the obscure facebook groups where very few can read them.

The first one is in a reply to James Young who, after I say I don’t follow the Bible but I do follow the Constitution, replies with:

“Follow the Constitution,” NOMTaunts? My copy doesn’t have a part which allows sexual deviants to redefine preexisting societal institutions, or — for that matter — protects sexual deviancy.

And when you’ve argued a case before the United States Supreme Court, perhaps you can tell use about the Constitution.

and then goes on to call me a coward for not posting under my own name, which if he “Liked” the NOMtaunts page on Facebook, he would find out instantly. Not that I’m hiding, I’m just promoting this here website thingy…

My reply to James:

It’s always about sex with you. Gay relationships were recognized in Grecian and Roman times, so how much more pre-existing do we really need to be? 2,000 years before the writing of the Constitution isn’t enough?

It’s about whom I pledge the rest of my life to and whether we have sex or not is really none of your business. You pledge your life to a woman (or a bunch of women one right after the other once you break each pledge) and you get over 1,000 rights and benefits. I pledge my life to a man and I get squat.

That is in direct violation of this: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Your Bible is NOT the law of the land and there are OTHER religions and interpretations of Christianity out there, thus:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

and

“In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required that states have a “compelling interest” in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct.”

There is no compelling interest the state can show. You CANNOT claim a “compelling interest to preserve the family unit” because since marriage equality has been legal in Massachusetts, divorce rates have plummeted 27%. In fact, there is a compelling interest to the state to ENCOURAGE same sex marriage amongst the gay population. Marriage encourages monogamy and with monogamy, the spread of STDs is reduced. Since homosexual couples have children whether you like it or not, you also need to think about THOSE children and not just your own. Having two parents that are legally married helps to bring stability and security to the CHILD’s life as well.

So really, if you were to go into SCOTUS and defend discrimination based on “It has always been this way” or “Justice Kennedy, go look it up in a dictionary!”….. you’re going to lose and lose hard.

 
No Comments

Posted in Legal