Andy posted these videos earlier, from New York state town clerks who are derelict in the duties of their jobs. They are victims, you see, because Maggie Gallagher says so. So, as part of Maggie’s new “Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance,” ** three religious bigots made videos whining about the fact that the state won’t give them a pass to do their jobs poorly, on account of their religious beliefs. Watch with the sound up, or watch with the sound down and put on some sad violin music.
Here is Rose, who is a sympathetic victim because all she really wants to do is take care of her cuddly farm animals anyway. Why are all the gays being mean by wanting equality?
Here is Laura Fotusky. Maggie has provided some scary music in order to convince the reader that Laura’s worries about her life being in danger are valid. Also, because it is October, and spooky music is in right now. Laura claims that her religious freedoms have been violated by marriage equality in New York, proving that she is completely unclear on what her religious freedoms actually are.
Finally, here is Ruth. Her video is also full of spooky music! They miss her at work, but she won’t go back because she just can’t imagine performing the duties of a secular government job anymore, now that there might be a gay couple here and there.
Truly, tales of woe and lamentations.
*Maggie’s new thing is apparently to give wingnut organizations really similar names to gay organizations, because that isn’t pathetic or anything.
“I didn’t believe that it was right for me to make my town pay for my religious convictions.”
Excellent point, Ms. Fotusky!
It’s incredible that these clerks have believed that, by doing their job, they were conferring some level of personal approval on everyone they’ve issued a marriage license to over the years. When a couple applying for a license appeared to have an unhealthy relationship, it was never their job to deny the license. Ditto if a couple was atheist, mixed faith, non-monogamous, or had a 40-year age gap.
They say they are or were proud to serve their fellow citizens, apparently including the ones they disagreed with or even found detestable. But serve the citizens who happen to be gay and lesbian? No, no, no, a law that treats gays and lesbians equally is too despicable to consider respecting.
I love the spooky music! You can totally tell that Maggie got really into the movie-trailer style text… Ah, Maggie, I feel so sorry for that woman’s tiny, unused brain. I feel that what should have appeared on the screen was “TEH GAYZ ARE COMING FOR YOU RAWR!!!!” That’s kind of the message.
These crazy women are evidently incapable of seeing a separation of church and state. The public is better off without them in office.
Is it just me or does Rose seem a little dykey?
Well, if their religion says to issue marriage licenses for atheists and for divorced people, I don’t see the problem of their signing licenses for gay couples. This is not a religious belief, it is a bigotry. But whether it is religious or not, they do have religious freedom. They can do their job, or if their religion forbids issuing licenses to gay couples but allows them to issue licenses for atheists and divorcees, they can just quit their jobs and let someone else who will do this civil job issues the licenses.
The organization should be re-named. Nobody is defaming marriage (except perhaps the heterosexuals who engage in adultery and multiple marriages while preaching about the sanctity of family and marriage). The organization would be more aptly named The Bigot Anti-Defamation Alliance.
I have to say that I admire these people for the obvious strength of character and decision-making ability. When faced with what they consider to be a situation where it’s do your job or be gone, they, realizing that they cannot do what the law requires of them, quit their jobs. Sad part is that their religious beliefs have twisted their thinking to the point of feeling like victims. If you are victims, you are victims of your own making. No one, no law, no entity has decreed that you cannot have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs. They are your personal business. However, when you take a public service job, you are required to serve the public, ALL of the public whether you don’t like, hate, disagree with any segments of that public. Your personal feelings are definitely secondary to the requirements of the job. If the public pays you, you then serve ALL the public including the ones you say you can’t because of personal, religious disagreements about something in John Q. Public’s personal life. It isn’t the law or the state that is infringing on you private beliefs, it’s your own choice to not do the whole job as required.
You all say you want to help all people, but that can’t possibly be true. These videos prove that it isn’t true. Is it ALL PEOPLE except the one’s with whom you disagree? That makes it NOT all people, NOT all the public.
You all stood up for your, what I consider, is a twisted take on the Bible, but you all did the right thing. If you can’t or won’t do the job – leave. Let someone get paid who doesn’t have any biases against certain members of the public and can truly serve them all.
Oh, boo-frakkin-hoo.
These people weren’t fired. They chose to quit, rather than have to share the same space with a gay couple. And now they’re acting like victims while at the same time propping themselves up for being so “courageous”.
“I’m simply too good and virtuous to give a marriage license to a couple of fags.”
Of course what it really comes down to is, “The version of God I’ve chosen to believe in just happens to share my bigotry.”
@ Bryan.
It’s not just you. Rose does seem to have something of the Sapphic about her.
Rose “pings” my gaydar.
Rose broke my gaydar.
Anyone remember Keith Bardwell? He’s the JP from Louisiana who refused to marry inter-racial couples because of his personal beliefs and how it ‘was for the children’? Did anyone stand up and say ‘hey, he shouldn’t be criticized for his beliefs’? Nope – he was roundly denounced and ended up resigning in 2009. It’s the same mindset – ‘It’s against my beliefs for (group X which I don’t agree with) so I won’t do it… but I still expect to be paid. Oh, and I’m not a bigot!’
(#11): “Oh, and I’m not a bigot!” It’s amusing how no one ever seems to self-identify as a bigot.